United States v. Rakesh Wahi
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3798
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Drs. Gautam Gupta and Rakesh Wahi were indicted on fraud-related charges; Gupta fled and Wahi proceeded in federal court. After discovery revealed possible inadvertent review of potentially privileged emails by an FBI agent, the government moved to dismiss the indictment and the court granted dismissal, sealed discovery, and retained limited jurisdiction to monitor turnover compliance. The case closed.
- Over two years later Wahi filed a pro se petition seeking equitable expungement of the publicly available judicial and FBI records, alleging reputational harm that impeded his employment prospects.
- The government argued lack of jurisdiction based on Kokkonen but, because of Seventh Circuit precedent, also addressed the merits. The district court (treating itself as bound by circuit precedent) took jurisdiction over the judicial-record expungement request, applied the Flowers/Janik balancing test, and denied relief on the merits; it declined to assert jurisdiction over FBI executive-branch records.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit reconsidered whether Flowers and Janik remain good law after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, and received counseled briefing on both jurisdiction and merits.
- The Seventh Circuit held that Kokkonen’s limits on ancillary jurisdiction control, overruled Flowers and Janik to the extent they recognized inherent ancillary jurisdiction to grant equitable expungement of judicial records, vacated the district court’s merits decision, and remanded with instructions to dismiss Wahi’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court has ancillary (inherent) jurisdiction to grant equitable expungement of judicial records after final judgment | Wahi argued court could use its inherent/ancillary power (per Flowers/Janik) to expunge judicial records because of reputational harm | Government argued Kokkonen forecloses ancillary jurisdiction for purely collateral equitable expungement claims absent a statutory or constitutional source | Held: Kokkonen controls; ancillary jurisdiction covers only (1) factually interdependent claims and (2) matters needed to manage proceedings/enforce decrees. Equitable expungement is collateral/policy-based and does not fit; Flowers and Janik overruled. |
| Whether any statute supplies jurisdiction to grant equitable expungement | Wahi relied on inherent power, not a statute | Government pointed out no general statute authorizes equitable expungement of judicial records in ordinary criminal cases | Held: No statutory source exists for general equitable expungement; jurisdiction must come from Constitution or statute, which are absent here. |
| Proper disposition given district court followed circuit precedent but lacked jurisdiction under Kokkonen | Wahi argued merits denial was correct; he sought to preserve outcome | Government sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; district court had applied Flowers/Janik and denied relief on merits | Held: Because district judge was bound by precedent, her merits ruling is vacated; case remanded with instruction to dismiss petition for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flowers, 389 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (applied a balancing test and recognized district-court jurisdiction to expunge judicial records)
- United States v. Janik, 10 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 1993) (adopted balancing test for equitable expungement)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limits ancillary jurisdiction to factually interdependent claims or matters needed to manage proceedings/enforce decrees)
- Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2016) (held Kokkonen precludes ancillary jurisdiction for equitable expungement)
- United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2014) (same)
- United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2006) (same)
- United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) (same)
- United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000) (same)
- Scruggs v. United States, 929 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1991) (limited inherent-power language; cautioned against expansive supervisory power over executive records)
- Diamond v. United States, 649 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1981) (earlier case authorizing expungement of arrest records without sourcing the court’s authority)