Summary
This Third Circuit opinion addresses an appeal by Bobrick Washroom Equipment challenging district court sealing orders entered during enforcement proceedings of a settlement agreement. The court held that the initial sealing order was moot because it had expired, while the subsequent perpetual sealing order was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine. However, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the second order due to a valid appellate waiver included in the parties' settlement agreement, and accordingly affirmed the sealing order while denying a request for a writ of mandamus.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal from the February 2022 sealing order was moot because that order expired when the District Court entered the August 2023 sealing order.
- Whether the August 2023 post-judgment sealing order was final and appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
- Whether the parties' settlement agreement waived Bobrick's right to appeal the August 2023 sealing order.
- Whether Bobrick was entitled to a writ of mandamus despite the appellate waiver.
Holdings
- The appeal from the February 2022 sealing order was moot because that order was no longer in effect after the District Court entered the August 2023 sealing order, and the Court of Appeals could not grant effective relief from the expired order.
- A post-judgment order sealing judicial materials in perpetuity is final and appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, even when the order permits the parties to reach a later agreement or allows possible reconsideration.
- The settlement agreement's waiver of 'any and all rights to appeal' decisions or orders arising out of the settlement agreement or an enforcement motion applied to the August 2023 sealing order, so the Court declined to exercise its appellate jurisdiction to review that order and affirmed it.
- Bobrick was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because it waived the regular appeals process and, even assuming it could satisfy the mandamus prerequisites, the Court would not exercise its discretion to issue the writ.
Key quotations
“Post-judgment orders that seal materials in perpetuity, such as the August 2023 order, are final and appealable.” (5)
“For an appellate waiver to have any force, it must cover appeals of orders that are legally correct and those that are erroneous.” (10)
“Mandamus is not “a substitute for the regular appeals process,”” (10)
Factual background
Scranton and Bobrick settled a false-advertising dispute concerning the advertising and regulatory compliance of toilet partitions. Their settlement agreement authorized enforcement proceedings in the District Court and expressly waived all rights to appeal decisions or orders arising from the agreement or an enforcement motion. During enforcement proceedings, the District Court sealed thousands of pages of hearing materials and future filings, first temporarily and later indefinitely. Bobrick challenged both sealing orders despite the appellate waiver.
Procedural history
Scranton's false-advertising claims and Bobrick's counterclaims were resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the District Court in 2018. During proceedings on enforcement motions, the District Court entered a February 2022 order temporarily sealing the hearing record and related filings, and an August 2023 order continuing wholesale sealing indefinitely unless the parties reached an agreement. Bobrick appealed both orders. The Third Circuit dismissed the challenge to the February 2022 order as moot, affirmed the August 2023 order based on an appellate waiver, and denied mandamus relief.