Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03551/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03551-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0086n.06

Case No. 19-3551

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

LARRY OBHOF, President of the Ohio 

Senate; LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, Speaker 

of the Ohio House of Representatives; and 

FRANK LAROSE, Secretary of State of Ohio, 

in their official capacities,

Defendants,

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE; 

ADAM KINCAID; NATIONAL

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL 

COMMITTEE,

Movants-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

BEFORE: GUY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. In May 2018, several Ohio voters and political organizations sued a 

handful of state politicians, alleging that Ohio’s congressional districting map violates the U.S. 

Constitution. During discovery, one of the plaintiffs, the Randolph Institute, sought documents 

 Case: 19-3551 Document: 36-2 Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 1
Case No. 19-3551, Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al. v. Larry Obhof, et al.

2

and deposition testimony from third parties, including the Republican National Committee, the 

National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Congressional Committee’s former 

redistricting coordinator Adam Kincaid. The third parties resisted, claiming First Amendment

privilege. See AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168, 175–76 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court rejected 

their arguments and compelled discovery. After a trial, the court ruled that Ohio’s congressional 

districting map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Less than two months later, 

however, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims amounted to political 

questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2506–

07 (2019). In response, the district court dismissed the case. 

No one appeals that decision. The third parties instead appeal the discovery orders. 

Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts to resolving “Cases” and 

“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Both sides must have concrete interests in the outcome

throughout the dispute. If one side loses a stake in the outcome, or it becomes “impossible” for 

the Court to grant any “meaningful relief,” we must dismiss the case as moot. Church of 

Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992). 

With respect to public documents, we cannot grant meaningful relief. There’s not much a 

court can do about preserving the confidentiality of information “widely available to the public.” 

Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the Randolph Institute used 61 of 

these documents as exhibits at the (fully public) trial, which required filing a complete set of paper 

copies with the district court. The third parties concede that these documents are now accessible 

to the public. And they concede that a complete transcript of Adam Kincaid’s deposition is 

publicly accessible on the district court’s online docket. With respect to these public documents, 

this appeal is moot. 

 Case: 19-3551 Document: 36-2 Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 2
Case No. 19-3551, Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al. v. Larry Obhof, et al.

3

With respect to the documents that remain confidential, this appeal is moot for a different 

reason: The third parties have already gotten everything they could ask for. Parties have an

“obvious possessory interest” in material disclosed during discovery, and courts may vindicate 

that interest by ordering the other side to destroy “any and all copies it may have in its possession.” 

Church of Scientology of Cal., 506 U.S. at 13. Here, this has already happened. The Randolph 

Institute says it has “securely destroyed” “any and all documents” containing the third parties’

confidential information. ROA 29 at 2. And the third parties do not dispute the truthfulness or 

completeness of that statement. 

The third parties also ask that the Randolph Institute “identify all individuals . . . who had 

access to” the confidential documents. Appellant Br. 16. This request is apparently motivated by 

a concern that these individuals could use the knowledge gleaned from these documents in future 

state court partisan gerrymandering cases. Of course, there is nothing we can do to redress any 

injury caused by the spread of knowledge itself; those bells cannot be un-rung. As for the use of 

that knowledge, concerns about what might happen in a yet-to-be-filed future lawsuit are typically 

not enough to keep a present dispute live. Saginaw County v. STAT Emergency Med. Servs., Inc.,

946 F.3d 951, 959 (6th Cir. 2020). That is particularly true here, where the third parties could 

easily identify illicit use and get a remedy from the court. The protective order bars all who 

received these documents from using them for any purpose other than “preparing for or conducting 

this litigation,” and it remains fully binding and enforceable into the future. R. 57 at 5.

The appeal is moot, but our work is not quite done. When a case becomes moot on appeal, 

we typically vacate the district court’s order. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 

39–41 (1950). That is because it usually “makes little sense to compel the losing party to live with 

the precedential and preclusive effects of the adverse ruling without having had a chance to appeal 

 Case: 19-3551 Document: 36-2 Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 3
Case No. 19-3551, Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al. v. Larry Obhof, et al.

4

it.” Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 716 (6th Cir. 2011); see 

Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 39–41. These principles apply here. And they apply with extra force, 

as the third parties tried to appeal earlier and we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, telling them to 

wait until final judgment. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Larose, 761 F. App’x 506, 507–08 (6th 

Cir. 2019).

We vacate the two challenged discovery orders.

 Case: 19-3551 Document: 36-2 Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 4