Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that a district court had inherent authority to order an intervenor-media organization to return or destroy confidential documents inadvertently disclosed during discovery in an employment discrimination action. The court concluded that the intervenor, having become a party, was subject to the district court’s case-management authority and had no First Amendment right to withhold documents obtained through the court’s discovery process. The court vacated the order denying Nike’s request for relief and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) over the district court's denial of an order requiring return or destruction of confidential documents.
- Whether a district court has inherent authority to order an intervenor to return or destroy confidential discovery documents inadvertently disclosed by another party.
- Whether the intervenor had a First Amendment right to withhold the inadvertently disclosed discovery documents.
- Whether any error in the district court's stated standard of review of the magistrate judge's order required reversal.
Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because an order requiring the return or destruction of documents and prohibiting dissemination is injunctive in nature, and the district court's denial had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief.
- A district court has inherent authority to order an intervenor to return or destroy confidential discovery documents inadvertently disclosed by another party because an intervenor becomes a party to the litigation and is subject to the court's inherent case-management authority.
- The Oregonian had no First Amendment right to withhold the confidential documents because pretrial discovery is not a public component of the judicial process and the documents were obtained through the court's discovery process rather than an independent source.
Key quotations
“We conclude that a district court’s inherent powers provide the authority to issue such an order.” (at 934)
“Because The Oregonian as an intervenor is likewise a party subject to the district court’s inherent powers, the district court has the same authority to require than any confidential documents mistakenly provided to The Oregonian by another party be returned or destroyed.” (at 940)
“Pretrial discovery proceedings “are not public components” of the judicial process, and a court can police access to information disclosed in discovery.” (at 941)
“That relaxed scrutiny is satisfied in this case because the district court’s exercise of its inherent authority over parties’ access to the fruits of discovery “furthers a substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.”” (at 943)
Factual background
Plaintiffs in a putative gender-discrimination and hostile-workplace class action obtained thousands of confidential discovery documents under a protective order, including internal Nike workplace complaints known as the Starfish complaints. After media organizations intervened to seek access to sealed information, plaintiffs' counsel inadvertently sent an Oregonian reporter confidential and unredacted documents during a meeting. The Oregonian refused plaintiffs' request to return or destroy the documents.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a putative employment-discrimination class action against Nike. After the district court entered a protective order governing confidential discovery, media organizations intervened to seek access to sealed information. Plaintiffs' counsel inadvertently disclosed confidential documents to an Oregonian reporter, and The Oregonian refused to return or destroy them. The magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion after initially granting it; the district court affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court's order denying Nike's motion for return of the disclosed documents and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The district court may also consider whether further discovery concerning the inadvertent disclosure is warranted. The court's order granting Nike's motion to seal was affirmed for purposes of enabling the district court to assess the relevance of sealed documents on remand.