W.P. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig. HD Media Co.)
927 F.3d 919
6th Cir.2019Background
- MDL involving ~1,300 public-entity plaintiffs suing opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers; DEA ARCOS transactional database subpoenaed by Plaintiffs for 2006–2014 data.
- The DEA and Plaintiffs stipulated to a Protective Order limiting ARCOS use to litigation and law enforcement and requiring Plaintiffs to notify DEA/Defendants of any state public-records requests so DEA/Defendants could seek court protection.
- District court ordered the DEA to produce ARCOS spreadsheets (initially for six states, later all states/territories) subject to the Protective Order; court found DEA/Defendants had not shown "good cause" to withhold from Plaintiffs.
- Local media intervenors (HDM and The Washington Post) sought ARCOS from county Plaintiffs under state public-records laws; DEA and Defendants opposed public release and the district court denied the media requests, applying the Protective Order to bar disclosure.
- Sixth Circuit granted interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, held that DEA/Defendants had not shown particularized "good cause" to impose a categorical, perpetual ban on public disclosure, vacated the Protective Order (and sealing/redaction orders), and remanded for narrower, justified protections if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/DEA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over denial of media access to sealed discovery | Intervenors: collateral-order jurisdiction applies; order is conclusive, separable from merits, effectively unreviewable | DEA: not a final order; must await final judgment/trial | Court: collateral-order doctrine applies; interlocutory appeal allowed |
| Whether the Protective Order showed "good cause" to bar all public-records disclosure of ARCOS data | Intervenors/press: strong public interest; transactional data critical to public understanding; prior disclosures caused no shown harm | DEA/Defendants: ARCOS contains confidential commercial and law-enforcement-sensitive info; disclosure risks competitive harm and interference with investigations | Court: abuse of discretion; DEA/Defendants failed to make particularized factual showing of harm; vacated blanket ban; remand for narrower, item-specific protection only |
| Scope of permissible protective measures (redaction, segmentation) | Intervenors: limited redactions suffice; wholesale ban unnecessary | DEA: redaction could reveal who is under investigation; insufficient to protect law enforcement | Court: DEA failed to justify why redaction/segmentation inadequate; district court must consider narrower measures on remand |
| Whether court improperly permitted sealing and redactions of pleadings and exhibits | Intervenors: strong presumption of public access to court records; sealing requires compelling, narrowly tailored reasons and on-the-record findings | DEA/Defendants: certain filings contain sensitive material warranting seal/redaction | Court: abused discretion by allowing sealing without specific findings; vacated sealing/redaction orders and remanded for case-by-case, compelling-need determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (publicity and openness as democratic safeguards)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral-order doctrine and practical finality)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits on collateral-order doctrine)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (protective orders in discovery permissible for good cause)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (need for factual findings to support protective measures)
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (strong presumption of openness for court records; sealing requires compelling, narrowly tailored justification)
- The Courier-Journal v. Marshall, 828 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1987) (standards for protective orders and public access challenges)
- Nat'l Broad. Co. v. Presser, 828 F.2d 340 (6th Cir. 1987) (media intervenor collateral-order appeal concerning sealed records)
- Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 381 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2004) (requirement for particularized showing to justify protection)