Bonnie Allen-Pieroni v. Southwestern Corrtl
694 F. App'x 339
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs originally sued Southwest Correctional, LLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after inmate Ivan Allen died, and discovery was conducted under a confidentiality/protective order; that case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation in September 2016.
- Kristi L. White and Alice D. Miller (collectively “White”) later filed a separate § 1983 suit against the same prison arising from a different inmate’s death (Beesley).
- After the first case had been dismissed and closed, White moved to intervene in that closed case to obtain access to the sealed discovery from the Ivan Allen litigation, arguing the materials were factually relevant to her separate Beesley case.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying intervention; the district court adopted the recommendation and held White lacked standing to intervene in the closed case.
- The court relied on Fifth Circuit precedent that a third party seeking access to sealed discovery in a closed case must demonstrate Article III standing because there is no live controversy in the underlying suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White may intervene in a closed case to obtain sealed discovery | White argued she has a strong personal interest because her separate case involves the same prison and access would reduce burden in her litigation | Defendants argued no intervenor standing exists because the underlying case is closed and there is no live controversy involving White | Denied: White lacks standing to intervene in the now-settled dispute and cannot obtain sealed discovery from the closed case |
Key Cases Cited
- Deus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 1994) (third party seeking to intervene in a closed case for sealed discovery lacks personal interest to confer standing)
- Newby v. Enron Corp., 443 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (no Article III standing requirement for intervenors in pending cases, but intervenors must have standing when the main case is closed)
- Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognizing the Fifth Circuit’s rule that a third party seeking to challenge a protective order after disposition must demonstrate standing)