Company Doe v. Public Citizen
749 F.3d 246
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Company Doe sued the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under the Administrative Procedure Act to enjoin publication of a CPSC “report of harm” alleging an infant's death linked to a Company Doe product; the CPSC had authority under the CPSIA to publish such reports but also procedures allowing manufacturers to challenge materially inaccurate reports.
- Company Doe asked to proceed under seal and by pseudonym, arguing public disclosure would undermine the very relief it sought (i.e., removal of the report) by publicizing the alleged harm and linking it to its product.
- The district court delayed ruling on sealing for nine months, during which the entire litigation (motions, briefing, oral argument) occurred under seal; it ultimately ruled for Company Doe on the merits, enjoined publication, and adopted extensive redactions/restrictions, permitting pseudonymous litigation.
- Three consumer advocacy groups (Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers’ Union) objected to sealing, moved to intervene post-judgment to appeal the sealing/pseudonymity orders, and appealed when the district court did not rule before the appeal period; the district court later revoked intervention after Consumer Groups had already appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit held (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the intervention motion after Consumer Groups filed a notice of appeal, vacated the district court’s denial of intervention; (2) Consumer Groups had nonparty appellate standing and independent Article III standing to appeal sealing and pseudonymity rulings; (3) the district court’s sealing order violated the First Amendment and its allowance of pseudonymity was an abuse of discretion; the case was remanded with instructions to unseal the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction to rule on intervention after notice of appeal | Consumer Groups’ intervention could be adjudicated by district court despite pending appeal | Company Doe: notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction to decide intervention | Notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction; district court lacked authority to rule on intervention and its denial was vacated |
| Nonparty appellate / Article III standing to appeal sealing | Consumer Groups: they objected below, were denied access, and have informational injury and interest in public access | Company Doe: Consumer Groups are nonparties without a concrete, particularized injury; no standing | Consumer Groups satisfied Kenny factors for nonparty appellate standing and have independent Article III standing based on denied right of access to judicial records |
| Validity of sealing under First Amendment and common law | Company Doe: sealing and redactions necessary to protect reputational/fiscal interests and preserve efficacy of injunctive relief; right to petition requires confidentiality | Consumer Groups/CPSC: public and press have qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial records, docket, and opinions; reputational harm alone is not a compelling interest | Sealing (including sealed docket, summary-judgment materials, and heavily redacted opinion) violated First Amendment; speculative reputational/economic harm insufficient; district court abused discretion and must unseal the record |
| Permitting pseudonymous litigation | Company Doe: anonymity needed to avoid nullifying relief and to protect business from reputational/economic harm | Consumer Groups: public has an interest in knowing litigants’ identities, especially when government is a party; anonymity is rare and must be supported by exceptional facts | District court abused discretion in allowing Company Doe to proceed pseudonymously; public interest and lack of exceptional showing weigh against anonymity |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1982) (timely notice of appeal generally transfers jurisdiction to court of appeals)
- Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1988) (only parties and permitted intervenors ordinarily may appeal)
- Kenny v. Quigg, 820 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1987) (nonparty appellate standing requires participation below and an interest in the cause)
- In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (procedural requirements for sealing: public notice, consider alternatives, on-the-record findings)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (common-law presumption of access to judicial records)
- In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986) (First Amendment access applies to documents filed in connection with proceedings that trigger the right)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2002) (objecting nonparties may appeal final orders that dispose of their rights without formal intervention)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (requirements for Article III standing)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (closure of judicial records under First Amendment requires compelling interest and narrow tailoring)
- James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1993) (factors for allowing pseudonymous litigation; anonymity is rare)