Randall Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing
17f4th1356
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- UNOS adopted a new liver-allocation policy; hospitals challenged it under the APA and the Fifth Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction; an earlier interlocutory appeal affirmed denial of one APA claim and the case was remanded.
- On remand the district court ordered discovery; UNOS delayed production and only produced internal communications after court orders, including informal emails with regional "hot takes."
- The hospitals filed a 10-page supplemental brief in support of a preliminary injunction attaching those communications; the district court provisionally sealed the brief and attachments.
- The district court later excluded the communications from the administrative record as to HHS but retained them in the court’s record and observed the emails contained evidence of possible regional bias.
- The hospitals moved to unseal; the district court granted the motion, finding the attachments were judicial records and UNOS had not shown good cause to keep them sealed.
- UNOS appealed, arguing lack of appellate jurisdiction, that the documents are not judicial records under a functional test, and that the district court abused its discretion in unsealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction: is an order granting unsealing immediately appealable? | Hospitals: order need not be reviewed until final judgment (not collateral). | UNOS: immediate review required because public disclosure is irreversible. | Court: Order granting unseal is appealable under the collateral-order doctrine; this Court has jurisdiction. |
| Are the produced emails "judicial records" subject to the common-law right of access? | Hospitals: Yes—attachments to a substantive pretrial motion (supplemental brief) become judicial records. | UNOS: No—urges a functional approach (post-Advance Local Media) requiring inquiry into the document’s actual role. | Court: Yes—the Chicago Tribune rule applies; documents filed with substantive pretrial motions are judicial records; UNOS’s proposed functional test rejected. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by unsealing (was there "good cause" to keep them sealed)? | Hospitals: Public interest and lack of confidentiality weigh for unsealing; no trade secrets or fraud; UNOS can pursue other remedies. | UNOS: Emails are private/internal, will chill policymaking, and hospitals acted in bad faith to publicize them. | Court: No abuse of discretion; UNOS failed to show good cause. Generalized chill and embarrassment insufficient; district court reasonably balanced factors. |
| Does Advance Local Media displace the categorical Chicago Tribune test? | Hospitals: ALM did not displace Chicago Tribune; it narrowly extended access for certain unfiled materials. | UNOS: ALM supports a functional, role-based inquiry into whether a document is a judicial record. | Court: ALM did not supplant Chicago Tribune; it expanded access narrowly but the filing-based rule remains the baseline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chi. Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (establishes that materials filed with substantive pretrial motions are judicial records subject to public access)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (orders sealing or unsealing are appealable; reiterates access rule for substantive motions)
- Fed. Trade Comm’n v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th Cir. 2013) (rejects reliance on a document’s actual use in resolving the case; focuses on type of filing attached)
- Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr. v. Advance Loc. Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2019) (narrowly extends "judicial record" concept to certain unfiled documents integral to merits resolution)
- In re Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2020) (observes the irreversibility of public disclosure in the information age)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits collateral-order doctrine as a narrow exception)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981) (defines final judgment rule for appellate jurisdiction)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (public access to judicial records is presumptive but not absolute)