Larry Flynt v. George Lombardi
782 F.3d 963
8th Cir.2015Background
- Two Missouri death-row inmates filed suits challenging Missouri's execution protocol (Ringo and Zink); certain docket entries and documents were sealed or hidden from the public.
- Larry Flynt, a publisher and death-penalty opponent, moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) in both cases to seek unsealing; no party opposed his motions.
- Ringo had been dismissed before Flynt moved; Zink was still active when Flynt moved; one plaintiff, Joseph Franklin, was a named plaintiff and had previously assaulted Flynt.
- The district court denied Flynt's motions to intervene, explaining that a generalized interest in the subject matter does not justify intervention, and denied his motion for reconsideration after Franklin's execution.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding Rule 24(b) is an appropriate vehicle for third parties seeking access to judicial records and that a strong nexus of fact or law is not required when intervention seeks only to unseal or modify protective orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 24(b) permissive intervention is a proper method for a third party to seek unsealing of judicial records | Flynt: Rule 24(b) is appropriate; he has an interest as a publisher and advocate and should be allowed to intervene to unseal records | Appellees: Flynt could file a separate action; generalized interest does not justify intervention | Court: Rule 24(b) is an appropriate procedural vehicle for intervention to seek unsealing; no strong factual nexus required |
| Whether an independent jurisdictional basis is required when intervening only to unseal documents | Flynt: Not required for limited-purpose intervention to modify protective orders | Appellees: Impliedly argued intervention was improper or unnecessary | Court: Independent jurisdictional basis is not required for limited-purpose intervention to unseal records |
| Whether timeliness or mootness bars intervention after case dismissal or after a plaintiff's execution | Flynt: Intervention can still be timely for limited purpose even after dismissal or execution | Appellees: Mootness/time likely argued to defeat intervention | Court: Motion to intervene may be timely even after underlying dispute resolved; execution did not render intervention categorically moot |
| Whether a generalized public/publisher interest suffices to intervene | Flynt: Publisher/public access interest supports intervention | Appellees: Generalized interest insufficient | Court: Generalized interest alone is not necessarily fatal; public interest in access creates a common question "in law" sufficient under Rule 24(b) for limited-purpose intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 1995) (sets Rule 24(b) permissive-intervention factors)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) (permissive intervention to modify protective orders may remain timely after underlying dispute ends)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (limited-purpose intervention to unseal documents does not require strong nexus)
- Jessup v. Luther, 227 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2000) (public interest in access supplies a common legal question for intervention)
- Pub. Citizen v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988) (third parties should use Rule 24 rather than informal motions to challenge protective orders)
- IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes intervention to access records from merits of unsealing request)
- Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ'g Co., 898 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (public's right to access and standards for unsealing judicial records)