BP Exploration & Prodn, Inc. v. ID
920 F.3d 209
5th Cir.2019Background
- Claimant ID 100246928 (the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) appealed a Deepwater Horizon settlement dispute and asked this Court to close the courtroom for oral argument and bar public posting of the audio recording.
- The Fifth Circuit recently vacated its blanket sealing order for Deepwater Horizon appeals; public access is now the default and parties must justify sealing.
- The Buccaneers obtained sealing of the appellate record and briefs based on proprietary NFL revenue data but sought additional secrecy for the oral argument.
- The team argued secrecy was needed because confidential financial details might be discussed at argument, that public disclosure would cause scandal or competitive harm, and that the settlement program had promised confidentiality.
- The Court rejected those justifications, stressing the strong presumptive right of public access to court proceedings and that private confidentiality agreements do not bind the appellate court.
- The motion to seal the courtroom and bar the recording was denied; the oral argument will be open and recorded for public access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courtroom should be closed for oral argument | Confidential financial data likely to be discussed; must protect proprietary NFL revenue figures | Public’s right of access outweighs confidentiality; argument can be conducted without disclosing numbers | Denied — courtroom remains open |
| Whether audio recording of oral argument should be barred from public posting | Posting would reveal claimant’s confidential claim and harm competitive standing | Routine public posting promotes transparency and trust in judicial process | Denied — recording will remain available |
| Whether prior settlement confidentiality binds appellate court | Settlement program confidentiality creates expectation of secrecy | Confidentiality agreements between private parties do not override public access; court independently reviews sealing | Denied — private agreements do not mandate sealing on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685 (5th Cir.) (explaining the public-access interest in judicial proceedings)
- Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988) (discussing the public-access rationale)
- In re Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 641 F.3d 168 (5th Cir.) (emphasizing openness and public understanding of the judicial system)
- In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 220 (5th Cir.) (recognizing public-access interests in civil proceedings)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (noting that open trials assure public confidence and closed trials breed suspicion)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S.) (identifying limited privacy or prejudice interests that can justify secrecy)
- Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.) (holding appellate courts independently assess sealing despite prior confidentiality agreements)