963 F.3d 130
D.C. Cir.2020Background:
- The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) prescribes a federal mail-in voter registration form; several states sought to add documentary proof-of-citizenship instructions to their state attachments.
- EAC Executive Director Brian Newby approved amendments for Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama after a prior denial; voting-rights groups sued, challenging Newby’s authority and whether the changes were "necessary."
- Commissioner Christy McCormick was deposed; the government asserted privilege over portions of her testimony and the district court ordered those portions sealed pending privilege rulings.
- Eagle Forum moved to permissively intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) for the limited purpose of obtaining access to the sealed materials; the district court denied intervention, finding (1) existing parties adequately represented Eagle Forum’s interests and (2) the sealed materials were not judicial records.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit treated the denial as an appealable collateral order and—relying on MetLife—held that materials filed in briefs to influence judicial decisionmaking (including sealed deposition excerpts) are judicial records; it reversed and remanded for the district court to consider privilege and other countervailing interests.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of denial of permissive intervention | Denial is a collateral order and therefore immediately appealable | (Government did not contest; court must still assess) | Collateral-order doctrine applies; order is appealable |
| Whether sealed materials are judicial records subject to public-access challenge | Briefs and appendices containing McCormick deposition were filed to influence the courts and thus are judicial records (per MetLife) | Sealed portions are not judicial records because courts did not quote/cite them and they concern an unadjudicated issue; privilege asserted | Under MetLife, parts of briefs filed to influence decisionmaking qualify as judicial records; intervenor may seek access, but district court must weigh privilege and other interests on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (briefs filed to influence a court constitute judicial records even if not quoted/cited)
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (public-access orders can be appealed as collateral orders; courts must balance access against countervailing interests)
- EEOC v. National Children's Center, Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (recognizes third-party permissive intervention to challenge confidentiality orders)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (discusses the common-law right of access to judicial records)
- SEC v. American International Group, 712 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (articulates that a document’s status as a judicial record depends on its role in adjudicatory process)
- United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (describes role-based test for judicial records)
- In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (order denying disclosure of court documents is appealable)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (defines collateral-order doctrine)
- League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (prior appellate decision in the underlying litigation)