Constand v. Cosby
112 F. Supp. 3d 308
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Andrea Constand sued Bill Cosby in 2005 alleging battery, sexual assault, emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy; discovery generated disputes and filings that the court temporarily sealed in 2005.
- Portions of Cosby’s deposition and multiple discovery-related briefs were filed under that interim seal; the case settled before the court resolved whether the seal should be permanent.
- In 2014–2015 the Associated Press sought to unseal those documents under Local Rule 5.1.5; the Clerk notified counsel that documents would unseal unless a party objected.
- Cosby objected and argued Rule 26(c)/Pansy balancing supported continued sealing (privacy, embarrassment, reliance on a confidential settlement, and prejudice to other proceedings).
- The Court applied Third Circuit law governing public access, Rule 26(c), and the Pansy factors, concluding Cosby’s privacy was diminished by his public role and statements and that he failed to show specific, cognizable harm from disclosure.
- The Court granted the AP’s motion, overruled Cosby’s objections, and ordered the listed documents unsealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery filings and deposition excerpts should remain sealed | AP: public has legitimate interest; Local Rule 5.1.5 triggers unsealing absent good cause | Cosby: Rule 26(c) good cause exists due to privacy, embarrassment, settlement reliance, and possible prejudice to other litigation | Court: No presumptive access for discovery filings; Cosby failed to show specific, cognizable harm—seal lifted |
| Weight of Cosby’s privacy as a public figure | AP: Cosby’s public statements and role reduce privacy; allegations already public | Cosby: Fame does not eliminate privacy in sensitive matters (sex, health, finances) | Court: Privacy interest diminished because Cosby voluntarily addressed public moral issues and allegations are already public; favors disclosure |
| Embarrassment and specificity requirement under Pansy | AP: General embarrassment is insufficient; no particularized injury shown | Cosby: Release would cause extreme embarrassment and publicity | Court: Generic embarrassment is inadequate under Pansy; Cosby did not demonstrate particularly serious, specific harm |
| Reliance on confidential settlement and effect on fairness/efficiency | AP: Parties could have sought a court-ordered permanent seal; public interest in access outweighs private settlement expectations | Cosby: Settlement included confidentiality; disclosure undermines reliance and may prejudice jury selection in other cases | Court: No court-ordered seal was obtained at settlement, reliance misplaced; speculative jury prejudice insufficient; unsealing permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) (recognizes common-law public right of access to judicial records)
- Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988) (public access promotes confidence in judicial system)
- United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (public right of access not absolute; distinguishes discovery materials)
- Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993) (no presumptive right of access to discovery motions and supporting documents)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) (sets factors for Rule 26(c) protective orders and for modifying confidentiality orders)
- Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995) (discusses Pansy factors and good-cause specificity requirement)
- Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2005) (district courts generally can seat impartial juries despite pretrial publicity)
- Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991) (continued sealing requires current evidence of likely harm)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) (embarrassment must be particularly serious to justify protective order)