135 F.4th 80
3rd Cir.2025Background
- Mesabi Metallics, during Chapter 11 bankruptcy, accused Cleveland-Cliffs (Cliffs) of anti-competitive conduct and initiated an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court.
- A stipulated protective order allowed parties to mark discovery documents confidential, with later challenges permitted.
- Mesabi, after losing a preliminary injunction, sought to unseal certain confidential documents to use in related state litigation, arguing for public access under the common law.
- The Bankruptcy Court, bound by Third Circuit precedent (Avandia), required Cliffs to overcome the common law presumption of openness, and found Cliffs had not met its burden.
- The Bankruptcy Court certified the legal standard question for direct appeal, recognizing possible conflict with statutory provisions under 11 U.S.C. § 107.
- A third party, Heyblom, also moved to unseal the documents, raising similar arguments; the Bankruptcy Court granted intervention and unsealing, but stayed its order pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot | Case moot after bankruptcy and shift to district court | Issue remains live; docs still sealed in Bankruptcy Court | Not moot; controversy ongoing as records remain sealed |
| Judicial estoppel barring Mesabi’s unsealing motion | Protective order allowed later challenges to confidentiality | Mesabi agreed to keep docs confidential, so cannot seek unsealing | No estoppel; protective order was provisional, not permanent |
| Correct standard for sealing in bankruptcy | Common law right; Avandia applies | Statutory § 107 control; broader grounds for sealing | § 107 displaces common law; Bankruptcy Court must apply § 107 |
| Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction during appeal | Should decide Heyblom’s intervention/unsealing | No jurisdiction during pending appeal | Lacked jurisdiction on Heyblom’s motions during appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court articulated common law right of access to judicial records)
- Bank of Am. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. recognized the presumption of public access to judicial records)
- In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. defined scope of judicial records under common law)
- Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355 (established standard for judicial estoppel in the Third Circuit)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (set out First Amendment standards for access to court proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (affirmed First Amendment’s role in public access to courts)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (notice of appeal divests lower court of jurisdiction over issues on appeal)