Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Solivan Solivan
844 F.3d 351
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (wrongfully convicted individuals and heirs) sued police officers and prosecutors under civil-rights theories after convictions were vacated; Rodríguez represented some plaintiffs on appeal and helped secure reversals.
- The parties mediated a settlement and a magistrate judge entered a "Fourth Settlement Conference Report" summarizing terms, including (1) no admission of liability, (2) confidentiality of settlement terms, and (3) court retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
- Four days later a local weekly published an article quoting Rodríguez describing the settlement as a "vindication" of plaintiffs' rights and an "implicit recognition" of violations of civil rights; the article did not quote plaintiffs or other counsel.
- Defendants sought enforcement; the district court held a contempt hearing, found Rodríguez made the quoted statement, concluded it disclosed a settlement term (thus violating the court's confidentiality order), imposed monetary sanctions, and referred Rodríguez to the Puerto Rico Supreme Judicial Court for ethical review.
- The First Circuit reviewed the contempt determination and referral, considering principles requiring narrow construction of prior restraints and the clear-and-convincing-proof standard for civil contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence Rodríguez made the quoted statement | Rodríguez denied nothing at hearing; article attributed quote to him, so he did make the statement | Defendants relied on the article attribution to show he spoke to the press | Court: Enough evidence; finding Rodríguez made the statement upheld |
| Whether Rodríguez's statement violated the court's confidentiality order (prior restraint) | Statement concerned plaintiffs' rights and was not an admission of defendant liability; thus did not disclose a settlement term | Statement calling settlement a "vindication" or "implicit recognition" revealed settlement substance and breached confidentiality | Court: Reversed contempt; statement did not unambiguously disclose any settlement term; prior-restraint must be narrowly construed and contempt requires clear-and-convincing proof |
| Whether a statement that plaintiffs were "vindicated" equals disclosure of a "no admission of liability" term | Rodríguez: Vindication of rights is ambiguous and does not necessarily mean defendants admitted liability, especially in civil-rights cases where immunity issues remain | Defendants: Any suggestion of recognition of rights implies concession of liability and thus disclosed the settlement term | Court: Agreed with Rodríguez—vindication of rights is ambiguous and could exist without admission of liability; disclosure finding was clearly erroneous |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by referring Rodríguez to the Puerto Rico Supreme Judicial Court for disciplinary review | Rodríguez: Referral rested on faulty contempt finding; with reversal, referral lacks basis | Defendants: Referral was not a final judicial action or was within court's discretion given perceived misconduct | Court: No need to "un-refer"; reversal eliminates basis for referral and Rodríguez may submit opinion to local court; no further relief ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against validity)
- Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963) (skepticism toward prior restraints on speech)
- Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (exceptions to prior-restraint doctrine are narrow)
- Burke v. Guiney, 700 F.2d 767 (1st Cir. 1983) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing proof)
- Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1991) (contempt requires violation of a clear and unambiguous order)
- United States v. Saccoccia, 433 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard of review for contempt: facts for clear error, sanctions for abuse of discretion)
- Hawkins v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. for N.H., Comm'r, 665 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (consent decrees/settlements can be converted into enforceable court orders in appropriate cases)
- Maldonado-Santiago v. Velazquez Garcia, 821 F.2d 822 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding liability in § 1983 suits implicates immunity and causation issues)
- Solis-Alarcón v. United States, 662 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2011) (government official liability under Commonwealth law requires balancing compensation and official duties)