Summary
The Eleventh Circuit held that documents attached to a supplemental brief in support of a preliminary injunction are judicial records subject to the common-law right of public access, rejecting a functional approach that would consider the documents' actual role in the court's decision. The court also held that orders granting motions to unseal are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because once information is released, it cannot be made secret again. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering unsealing where UNOS failed to show good cause beyond a desire to avoid embarrassment from indiscreet internal communications.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the order granting a motion to unseal is reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.
- Whether the documents attached to the supplemental brief are judicial records subject to the common-law right of access.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering the documents unsealed.
Holdings
- An order granting a motion to unseal is appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it conclusively determines a disputed question, resolves an important issue separate from the merits, and is effectively unreviewable after final judgment due to the irreversible nature of public access.
- The documents are judicial records because they were filed in connection with a pretrial motion that requires judicial resolution of the merits—specifically, a supplemental brief in support of a preliminary injunction.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion because it properly considered the relevant factors and UNOS did not show good cause to keep the documents sealed.
Factual background
UNOS developed a new liver allocation policy that changed geographic parameters for organ allocation. Hospitals and patients opposed to the policy sued UNOS and HHS. During discovery, UNOS was ordered to produce communications between its top-level personnel and outside policymakers. After two court orders, UNOS produced emails containing unguarded personal opinions about different regions. The hospitals attached these emails to a supplemental brief in support of a preliminary injunction. The district court initially sealed the documents but later granted a motion to unseal.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued UNOS and HHS, alleging violations of the APA and Due Process. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed on interlocutory appeal. On remand, the district court ordered limited discovery. UNOS failed to produce documents until ordered. After the documents were produced, the district court allowed supplemental briefing. The court initially provisionally sealed the documents, then later granted the plaintiffs' motion to unseal. UNOS appealed the unsealing order.