Donel Autin v. William Goetz
2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donel and Dana Autin sued William Goetz (2010) for defamation, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and engaged in contested discovery.
- The trial court entered multiple protective orders under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.03 (including an Attorneys'-Eyes-Only designation for AT&T/Verizon materials) and a temporary sealing order stating the seal could continue until further court order.
- After extensive discovery disputes, the Autins filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit; the court entered an order of dismissal (March/August 2012) that expressly kept the case and discovery materials sealed "in perpetuity" and preserved the protective order.
- Goetz later filed a separate malicious-prosecution suit; he also sought modification of the protective order (May 2015), arguing changed circumstances and First Amendment interests.
- The trial court denied modification as barred by res judicata and refused an evidentiary hearing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Autin) | Defendant's Argument (Goetz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to extend/modify a Rule 26.03 protective order after the plaintiff files a notice of nonsuit | Court retained power to protect records; protective order was entered during pending litigation and may continue until court lifts it | Nonsuit instantly terminates the case and strips the court of jurisdiction except for ministerial entry of dismissal | Court: trial court retains jurisdiction to extend/modify an existing protective order entered while case was pending; dismissal is effective on entry of court order, not the notice alone |
| Whether the court’s extension of the protective order amounted to an improper permanent injunction or exceeded Rule 26.03 | Protective order narrowly tailored to discovery and confidentiality; legitimate privacy/child-safety interests supported sealing | Order functioned as permanent injunction restricting speech and filings beyond discoverable material; violated First Amendment | Court declined to consider scope/First Amendment challenge because Goetz failed to timely appeal the August 2012 final order; issue is voidable (not void) and must be raised on direct appeal |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider evidence of changed circumstances in motion to modify | Court may consider modified circumstances and balance privacy vs. need for access; protective orders are modifiable | Denial justified by res judicata and finality of prior orders; no new basis for modification | Court: trial court erred to deny an evidentiary hearing and to dismiss Goetz’s motion on res judicata grounds; remanded for proceedings applying Ballard standard |
| Standard and burden for modifying a protective order | Modification requires balancing original "good cause" factors plus parties’ reliance; movant must show need outweighs privacy (Ballard) | (Respondents emphasize protection of children and reliance on order) | Court: applies Ballard — trial court must balance original factors and reliance; movant bears burden and trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court retains power to modify or lift protective orders; balancing test for good cause)
- Green v. Moore, 101 S.W.3d 415 (Tenn. 2003) (nonsuit is not effective for appeal/timeliness purposes until court enters signed order)
- Rickets v. Sexton, 533 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1976) (plaintiff generally has the right to take a voluntary nonsuit before trial)
- In re NHC–Nashville Fire Litig., 293 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (discussing court's supervisory authority over records and Rule 26.03 origins)
- Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) (a court retains supervisory power over records and can modify protections after litigation concludes)
- Pub. Citizen v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988) (federal courts uniformly recognize power to modify discovery-related protective orders after judgment)
- Krause v. Rhodes, 671 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1982) (trial court can continue to manage dissemination of protected materials post‑litigation)
- United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1990) (court that entered a protective order retains power to modify it even if underlying suit has been dismissed)