MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13914
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- FSOC designated MetLife as a "nonbank financial company" under Dodd-Frank after MetLife voluntarily submitted extensive nonpublic financial materials to the Council.
- MetLife sued under 12 U.S.C. § 5323(h); in summary-judgment briefing parties filed redacted public briefs and sealed unredacted briefs plus a 16-volume joint appendix containing the administrative record.
- Better Markets intervened and moved to unseal the sealed briefs and joint appendix; the district court denied the motion, holding § 5322(d)(5)(A) of Dodd-Frank required confidentiality and displaced the Hubbard sealing test.
- The district court publicly issued an unredacted opinion vacating FSOC’s designation but kept much of the appendix and parts of briefs sealed; Better Markets appealed the denial to unseal.
- The D.C. Circuit panel considered whether the sealed materials are "judicial records" subject to the common-law presumption of public access and whether Dodd-Frank categorically abrogates that right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Better Markets) | Defendant's Argument (MetLife/FSOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sealed briefs and joint appendix are judicial records | They are judicial records because they were filed to influence the court and contain the administrative record for review | Some sealed parts did not influence the opinion and thus are not judicial records | Court held they are judicial records: briefs and appendix were part of adjudicatory process and relied upon even if uncited |
| Whether the common-law right of public access (Hubbard factors) applies | Hubbard balancing governs motions to unseal; strong presumption for access | Dodd‑Frank §5322(d)(5)(A) categorically protects submissions to FSOC and displaces Hubbard | Court held Hubbard applies; Dodd‑Frank does not displace common-law right |
| Whether §5322(d)(5)(A) requires courts to maintain confidentiality of submitted materials | Statute does not address courts and thus does not bar judicial disclosure; FOIA incorporation and other subsections show non-absolute confidentiality | The statute’s confidentiality mandate for Council implies categorical protection, and judicial review should not strip that protection | Court rejected appellees’ textual and extra-textual arguments; statute governs agencies, not courts, and contemplates FOIA exceptions rather than absolute secrecy |
| Remedy / next step | Remand for district court to apply Hubbard with document-specific findings | District court had already ruled confidentiality precluded Hubbard; appellees sought to uphold sealing | Remanded: district court must apply Hubbard factors, give particularized reasons, balancing Dodd‑Frank confidentiality weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizing common-law public right of access to judicial records)
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir.) (establishing six-factor balancing test for sealing judicial records)
- In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir.) (addressing agency filing confidentiality and limits on public filing by agencies)
- SEC v. Am. Int’l Grp., 712 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (explaining when documents filed with court are not judicial records)
- Center for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. DOJ, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir.) (statutory displacement of common-law rules requires clear congressional command)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial review of agency action focuses on the administrative record)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct.) (agency action arbitrary and capricious if contrary to evidence in administrative record)
- Hardaway v. D.C. Housing Auth., 843 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate application of Hubbard in a narrow, clear-case context)
- United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishing documents that are not judicial records when only incidental to court’s action)