Green v. Cosby
314 F.R.D. 164
| E.D. Pa. | 2016Background
- Andrea Constand sued Bill Cosby in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Constand Litigation); the parties later settled under a Confidential Settlement Agreement (CSA) in 2006.
- During the Constand Litigation, a court entered a temporary sealing order for certain docketed documents; those documents were later unsealed in 2015 on AP’s motion.
- In Massachusetts, seven plaintiffs (Green, Serignese, Traitz, Moritz, Bowman, Tarshis, Leslie) sued Cosby for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (the Green Litigation), alleging sexual assaults and asserting Cosby’s denials were defamatory.
- Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Constand’s former counsel Dolores Troiani for Constand’s entire case file (excluding attorney-client and work-product). Troiani did not object; Cosby and intervenor American Media, Inc. (AMI) moved to quash or modify.
- The central disputes: whether the CSA or sealing order bars third‑party discovery; the relevance and admissibility of materials about other alleged victims; whether the subpoena is overbroad or imposes undue burden; and AMI’s request to redact the settlement amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidentiality under the CSA or sealing order bars discovery | CSA/seal should not block disclosure to third parties; Plaintiffs need the file to prove allegations | Cosby: CSA and sealing order make file confidential; Plaintiffs must show compelling justification | Court: CSA/temporary seal do not bar discovery to non‑parties; denied compelling‑justification barrier; granted quash only as to CSA itself |
| Relevance of materials about other alleged victims (other witnesses) | Materials about other alleged victims are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and may be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 415 | Cosby: Plaintiffs’ suit is not a sexual‑assault claim; thus other‑victim materials aren’t relevant or admissible under Rule 415 | Court: Discovery relevance is broad; materials about Plaintiffs and other witnesses are discoverable (admissibility is a later issue) |
| Scope/overbreadth of subpoena (materials unrelated to Plaintiffs or other witnesses) | Plaintiffs seek the full file (minus privileged items) to locate relevant evidence | Cosby: subpoena is overbroad; many file parts are irrelevant | Court: subpoena denied as to file portions unrelated to Plaintiffs or other witnesses; otherwise allowed (privileges preserved) |
| Undue burden and standing to quash third‑party subpoena | Plaintiffs: production is appropriate; protective remedies can follow if needed | Cosby: production would harm criminal prosecution, privacy of other witnesses; seeks quash for undue burden | Court: Cosby lacks standing to claim undue burden on Troiani or other witnesses; speculative harm insufficient; denied quash on undue‑burden grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) (private confidentiality agreements do not bar discovery by non‑parties)
- Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363 (D. Nev. 1993) (confidential settlement terms do not bind non‑signatories in discovery)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) (standard for modifying protective orders and balancing confidentiality concerns)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (broad construction of relevance for discovery)
- In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. 234 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (procedural framework: subpoena must fit within Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and burden shifts after showing relevance)