## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1963 A MERI CAN B ANK, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant,
v. C ITY OF M EN AS HA, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 4:0 9-cv-00 64 -TLS-APR

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judge
.

____________ A RG UE D O CT OB ER 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2010

____________

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The Pr i vat e S ecuri ti es Lit i gat i on Re f o r m Acto f1 9 9 5 p r o v i de s , wi th a n i m m a t e r i a le xc e ption , that“a l l di sco ver y a nd o therpro ceedi ngs s hal l be sta yed duri ng the pendency of any m oti on t o dism i ss” a su it gov e r n e d by the A ct. 15 U
. S. C
. § 78u-4(b)(3)( B ). The S e c ur i t i e s Li t i g a t i o n Uni f o r m S t a nd a r ds Ac to f 1998 ( SLU SA) am ended the Pri vate S ecu riti es Lit i gat i on2 N o. 10

- 1963 Ref or m A ct ( PSLRA ) to au th or i ze the di str i ct c ourtto “st ay disc ove ry proce edi ngs i n any pri vate acti on i n a S tat e cour t, as necess ar y i n ai d o f i ts j uri sdic ti on, or to p rotec t oreffectuat e i ts j ud gm ents, i n an ac ti on s ubj ect to a s t a y of d iscovery p urs ua nt to [ sect ion 78u -4(b)( 3)(B), quoted ab ove]
. ” 1 5 U.S
. C. § 7 8u- 4( b) ( 3) ( D). The questi on pr ese nted by thi s a pp eali s whether thi s pro vi si on o f S LUS A a utho r i z e s the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o e nj o i n a p r i vate secur i ti es pla i nti fffro m ga i ni ng ac cess t o re c or ds that a sta te’ s p ubl i c- re cor ds l aw enti tl es m em ber s o fthe pu bl i c to see and copy at thei r own expense. The City o fMen a s ha, Wi s c o nsi n i ssued bo nd anti ci pati on note s ( i n effect, sho rt
- ter m bo nd s) to fi nance thec onver si on ofan el ectr i c p ower p l ant ow ned by i t t o a s tea m - gener atin g p lan t t h at w ou ld bu rn a c h ea p er form of c o a l, em it l ess p ol l uti on, and prov i de ste am to nearby paper m i l l s. Bu t the proj ect w ent way o verbudget

— cos ti ng $40 m i l l i on r atherthan the pla nned $ 12. 7 m i l l i on

— an d e ve ntual l y the Ci tyde f au l te d o n the b o nds t o the tune o fmore th a n $ 2 0 mi l l i o n . Me n a s h a U t i l i t i e s , “ E x e c u t i v e S u mm ary— B us iness P lan for M en ash a Pow er Plant Con vers i on, ” J une 22, 20 06, ww w . m enas haut i l i ti es. com /m edi a/ M U _- _Busine ss_ I ssue_ 6- 2 2

- 0 6
. pd f ( vi si ted N ov. 1, 2010) ; R i ck Rom el l, “C i ty ofM enasha Sued A fterDef aul ti ng o n Bond s, ” Jour nal Se nt i ne l O nl i ne, S e p t
. 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , w ww . j s o n l i n e . c o m/b u s i n e s s / 6 2 3 4 2 6 4 7
. h t ml ( vi si te d Nov
. 1 , 2 01 0)
. Owner s o fthe b o nds , i nc l udi ng a W i sco nsi n bank nam ed A m er i can Bank, fi l ed a c l ass acti on s uitag ai nst the Ci ty, char gi ng tha t i t had vi ol ate d federa l se curi ti es l aw byf ai l i n g t o disc l ose to pro specti ve bu yers of the bon d s m aterial inform ation ab ou t the conv er-N o. 10

- 1963 3 si o n pr oj ec t. The s ui t nam ed “ M en as ha Uti l i ti es ” an d “Mena sh a S te am U ti l i ty ” as a ddi ti o na l de fen dants, b ut th ey seem m erely to be na m es of subd ivi sions of the city’s gov er nm ent r atherthan enti ti es dis tinct f ro m the City, so we c a n i g n o r e th e m. A m er i can Bank was a nam ed pla i nti ffi n the cl ass act i on su it, an d le s s t h a n tw o w ee ks aft er th e s u it w as filed it su bm itted a requ est to th e C ity, pu r s u a n t to W iscons in’s Publi c Reco rds Law, W i s. S tat
. §§ 19
. 31-
. 39 , t o i nspect a l ar g e numbero fr ec o r ds, s pec i fi ed i n th e r eque st, r el at i ng to the c o nv er si o n pr oj ec t. ( I n a n e xa m pl e o fs i l ly, a nd i nd eed unprofess i onal, ad voca cy, M enasha’ s br i efnei ther cit e s n or m en tions th e pu bli c-record s law , as i f th ere we r e n o l e g a l b a s i s f o r Ame r i c a n B a n k ’ s i n s i s t i ng o n c o m pl i an ce wi ththe r eque sta nd a s i fthe re f o r e th e sta y g ra nted by the di str i ct c ourtdi d not pre em pt a st at e l aw. ) Al th o ug h r equi r ed to r es po nd t o the re quest “ w i thout del ay, ” § 19
. 35( 4) ( a), th e Ci ty dragg ed its h ee ls, s o A m er ica n B an k ob ta in ed from a W isc on sin st at e c ou rta m an d am u s c om m a n d in g t h e C ity to co m p ly w ith th e req ue st. T he record s sou gh t w ere

— the Ci ty do es no t den y

— pu bl i c r eco rds withi n the m eani ng o f the publ i c r eco rds l aw , W i s. S tat
. § 19. 32( 2) , and ther ef or e a vai l abl e t o any “ re quester, ” incl ud i ng o ne wh ose i nt er es t i n the r ec o r ds stems fr o m hi s i nv o l ve m en t inlitiga tio n . C avey v. Wa lrath , 59 8 N
. W
. 2d 240, 24 3 n . 4 (W is. A p p . 199 9); St at eex re l
. La nk v. Rze ntkows ki, 416 N
. W
. 2d 635, 637-38 (W is. A p p . 1987). The Ci t y r e s po nd e d t o Am e r i c a n Ba nk ’ s r e qu e s t and to the m andam us or der not by produci ng the docum ents, as4 N o. 10

- 1963 st at e l aw r equi r ed an d the s tate cou r t ha d o r der ed, b ut i nstea d b y ask i ng the dist ri ct cour t i n w hi ch the secur i ti es s ui twa s p e nd i ngf o r a s t a y u nd e r s ub s e c t i o n 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( D) o fS LU S A. The co ur t g r an te d the st aya nd Am er i ca n Ba nk ha s a pp e a l e d. T h e C ity arg u es th at th e sta y i s n otap p ea lab le b ec au se it i s j us t a di sc o ve r y o r der
. F o r r ea so ns e xpl aine d i n Reis ev. B o a rd o f R egen ts of U niv ersity o f Wisco nsin Sy stem , 95 7 F
. 2d 29 3, 29 5 ( 7th Ci r . 19 92 ) , di sc o ve r y o r der s, b eingi nt er l o cutory, gen erall y are not ap p ealable i n t h e federa l cou rt sy st em , A llend a le M utu a l A uto Ins. C o . v. B ull D a ta Sy stem s, Inc. , 32 F.3d 11 75 , 117 7 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); G ood m an v. Harris C ounty, 443 F.3d 46 4 , 4 68 (5t h C ir. 20 06 ); Int e r nat i onal P rod uc ts C o rp. v . K o o n s, 32 5 F
. 2d 403, 40 6 ( 2d Cir
. 19 63) ( Fr i e nd l y, J
. ) , e v e n tho ugh the y l o o kl i k e i nj uncti o ns

— w hi ch ar e a pp eal abl e though i nter l ocuto ry, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 292( a) ( 1)

—because theya re o rder s t o do r ather th ant o pa y . The r e a re e xc ept i o ns t o the r ul e ba r r i ngthe i m m edi at e appeal of a di sc o ve r y o r der, a s when th e or der “ re sol ves an i m port ant i ssue com ple tel y s epara te fro m th e m er its of th e a c ti o n ” a n d is th er efo re ap p ea lab le u n d er th e c olla te ra l-ord er d oc tr in e, G ood m an v . Harris C ounty, sup ra , 44 3 F
. 3d at 468, o r w hen a peti ti onerf or m anda mus p r o v e s “ i r r e pa r ab l e h a r m . . . a nd a c l ear right to the r eli ef sough t [the vac ating of the d iscovery or der]
. ” In re Sand ahl, 980 F.2 d 1 1 18, 1119 (7th C ir. 1992 ) ; se e a l so U nite d State s ex rel
. Ch andlerv. Co ok C ounty, 2 7 7F
. 3 d 9 69, 9 8 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. In di s c us s i ngthe s c o pe of t h e c olla te ra l-ord e r d oc tr in e, th e Su p re m e C ou rtsa id r ec en tly tha t th e cr i ti ca l que st i o n i s “whe th erde fer r i ng re vi ew un til fi nal j ud gm ent s o i m peri l s the i nter estasN o. 10

- 1963 5 to j us ti fy the c o sto fa l l o wing i m m edi at e appe alo fthe entire cl ass o fr el evanto rder s. ” M oha w k Indust ri es, Inc. v. C a rpen ter, 130 S. Ct
. 599, 606 (2009). W iscons in con side rs th e availabil ity ofpu bli c record s to be su ffici en t ly i m p ortant to j usti fy the gr ant ofm andam us to co m pel i m m edi ate producti on o f re quested docum ents

— a r i ght infr i nged by the s taygr anted to M enasha. M ay b e a fu rt h er ex c ep tio n to th e fin al-ju d gm en t ru le shoul d be ca rv ed f ora disc ove ryo rder thathas the e ffect ofpre em pti ng a sta te l aw , bec ause such an o rderis a s l ap infed er alis m ’s fa c e. Johnson v. Fank el l , 52 0 U.S
. 91 1, 92 2 (1 99 7); Ci tyof

Jo l i e tv. N e w We s t, L
. P. , 56 2 F
. 3d 830, 83 6- 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8). The a r g um en t f o r the e xc ept i o n g ains supp or t fro m the echo i n SLU SA’s s taypro vi si on o f l a ngua g e i n b o th the Al l W r i t s Act, 2 8 U. S
. C. § 16 51, an d the A nt i- I njun ction A ct, 28 U
. S. C
. § 2283 (“as ne cess ary i n ai d o f it s j uri sdic ti on, o r to prot ect oreffectuat e i ts j ud gm ents” ) , since the “wri ts” i ssued u n d er tho se acts a r e a p p ea lab le a s inj u n c tio n s. Wi nkl e rv. EliLi l l y & Co. , 10 1 F .3d 11 96 , 1 20 0-0 1 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); Negre t ev. Al l i anz Life Ins . Co. , 52 3 F
. 3d 1091 , 10 96- 97 ( 9th Ci r. 20 08) ; B urr & Form an v . Blair, 470 F.3d 101 9, 1027 -28 (11th C ir. 2006); In reBankAm e r i ca Co rp. Se cu r i t i e s Li t igat i on , 26 3 F
. 3d 79 5, 80 0 (8 th C ir. 20 01 ); G eorgi ne v. A m C hem Produ cts, Inc. , 83 F. 3d 610, 62 3- 24 ( 3d Cir
. 1 996). The bankar gues that i nspecti ng publ i c r eco rds pursuant to a state st atute i s no t di sc o ve r y wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe s ta y pr o vi si o n, and thus a sta y ofsuch inspecti on i s a n i nj uncti on a gainst enf or cem ent ofa sta te l aw and appeal abl e a s s uch

— as i n Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Bo a r d o f Ed u c a t i on , 11 F. 3d 668, 67 1- 72 (7t h C ir. 19 93 ); O l deD i s co untCorp. v. Tupm an , 1 F. 3d 202,6 N o. 10

- 1963 206 ( 3d Cir
. 19 93) , and countl ess o thercas es

— w i thout need f ora furtherexce pti on t o the fi nal

-j ud gm ent rule
. So thi s m ay b e a cas e in w hi ch the m er i ts ofthe appeal and w hetherwe have j urisd i cti on o veri t a re i nseparabl e. S e e , e.g., Kerns v. U nited Sta tes , 5 85 F
. 3d 18 7, 1 95 ( 4th Ci r. 2 0 0 9); Sh o a

f v. D epa rtm ent o

f A gric ultu re, 26 0 F
. 3d 1336 , 13 40 -41 (Fe d . C ir. 20 01 ); N owak v. Ir onworke rs Local 6 Pen s i on Fun d, 81 F. 3d 1182, 1 1 9 0 ( 2d Cir. 1996). I f th e C ity’s interp r et at ion of fed er al la w is co rre c t, A m er ica n B an k is engag ed i n dis cove ryand so cannotapp ea l u nl ess i t ca n i nv o k e o ne o fthe e xc ept i o ns t o the r ul e ag ains t i nt er l ocutory ap p eal ofdiscov er y orde rs. I f A m erican B an k’s i nt er pr et at i o n i s r i g ht, i t i s ce r ta i n th at th e st ayi s no t th e st ayofa di sc o ve r y o r dera nd s o c ano nl yb e ani nj unc ti o n, a n d o n l y a s t a y o fd i s c o v e r y i s a u th o r i z e d b y S L US A. We thi nk Am er i can Bank is r i ght, and that re so lves bo th j uri sdic ti on a nd m er i ts. The wor d “ di sc o ve r y ” i s no t a sy no ny m f o r inv es ti g at i o n. M u c h of th e in for m at ion -ga t h e r in g t h at litiga n ts d o is n o t“ d i s c o v e r y ” a s th e t e r m i s u n d e r s t o o d i n th e l a w. Se e, e. g. , Fe d. R . C iv. P . 2 6( b) ; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 34
. They tal k t o thei r cl i ents and to w i tnesses , r ead newsp aper acco unts, stud y the r eco rds o fpre vi ous j ud i ci alo r adm i ni st r a t i v e p r o c e e di ng s , t r o l l the W eb

— they do al l thes e th i ng s an d m o r e wi th o utb eingtho ug htt o b e co nduc ting “dis cove ry .” A pl ai nti ff’ s l aw yerm i ght s tudy cor pora te r ec o r ds o fthe defen dan t th at wer e f r ee l y a cc es sibl e o nl i ne an d n o on e w ou ld th in k t h e la w ye r w a s e n ga ge d in “dis cove ry . ” Cor pora te docum ents re quir ed by the S EC to b e fi l e d a r e a v a i l ab l e o n l i n e , s e e w ww . s e c . g o v / e d g a r . s h t mlN o. 10

- 1963 7 ( vi si te d Nov
. 8 , 2 01 0) , a nd tho se do cument s ar e o fte n a t th e he ar t o fthe pr ec o m pl ainti nv es ti g at i o n r equi r ed by th e Pri vate S ecuri ti es Law Ref or m A ct. The case l aw uni f or m l y r efuses to de fin e requests f or acces s to federa l or sta te pu bl i c re cor ds und er p u b l i crec or ds l aw s ( such as the federa l Fr eedom o fInfo rm ati on Ac ta n d s t a t e p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a ws

— i ncl ud i ng W i sco nsi n’s ) as di sc o ver y de m an ds, e ve n whe n a s i n thi s ca se the re que s ti s ma de f o r the p ur po s e o fo b t a i ningi nfo r mat i on to ai d i n a l i ti gat i on a nd i s worded m uch l i ke a disc ove rydem an d
. N LRB v. Rob b i ns Tire& Rub b e rCo. , 43 7 U .S. 21 4, 24 2 a n d n . 23 (1 97 8); N LR B v. Se ars, Ro eb uck & Co. , 421 U .S. 1 3 2 , 1 4 3 n . 10 (1 97 5); Le uc adi a, Inc . v. A pplie d E xtrus ion Technolog ie s, Inc. , 99 8 F
. 2d 15 7, 167- 68 ( 3 d C i r. 19 93 ); M ayc oc k v. Ne l s on , 93 8 F
. 2d 1006 , 10 08 (9t h C ir. 19 91 ); R SR Co rp. v. Brock, 76 4 F
. 2d 3 55, 36 7- 68 (5t h C ir. 19 85 ); C avey v. Walrath , sup ra , 5 98 N. W
. 2d at2 43 n. 4; St at eex re l
. La nk v. Rze ntkows ki, sup ra , 416 N
. W
. 2d at 637- 38 ; Kent nerv. Indiana P ubli c Em ployers ’ Plan, Inc. , 85 2 N
. E.2 d 5 6 5 , 5 74

- 7 5 ( I nd
. App
. 2 0 0 6 )
. T he De l a wa r e Ge ne ra l Corpor ati on Law , f orexam ple , enti tl es shar ehol ders to i nspect co rpor ate bo oks and re cor ds f or“a ny proper p urp ose.” Del. C od e A nn . tit. 8, § 220(b), and the D elaw are Suprem e C ou rthas rul ed that re quests m ade under th is p ro v isio n are n otd isc ov er y d em an d s. E .g., Saito v. M cKess on H B O C, Inc. , 806 A
. 2d 1 1 3 , 114-15 (De l. 2002). T h at is all th at A m er ica n B an k d id h er e w h en it re q u es te d ac c es s t o p u b lic (n otp riv at e, n otco n fid en tia l, not pri vi l ege d, not hi dd en) r eco rds o fi ts opponent. Ofc o ur se Co ng r es s i n S LU S A m i g hthav e be enusi ngthe w or d “ d i s c o v e ry ” in so m e b ro ad lay se n se rat h er th an in8 N o. 10

- 1963 the c onventi onalleg alsense, and then w e would be o bl i ged to gi ve the w or d i ts l ay m eani ng, w hi ch m i ght e ncom pass A m er i can Ban k’s r equest. “Loo se const ructi on” i s no t a n oxym or on; i t i s a t i m e- honor ed i nter preti ve approach. S ee, e. g . , Ol i ve r W en del l Hol m es , “ J o hn M ar sh al l ” ( 19 01 ) , i n The E ssentia l Ho lm es 20 6, 20 7 ( Ri ch ar d A
. Pos ne r ed. 1 99 2)
. But w e w ou ld h ave to be given a reason , grou nd ed i n sta tu tory pu rpos e o r pract i calco nsequences, f oran interpret ati on th at g oe s ag ain st t h e se m an tic gra in, an d th e C ity is u n ab le to giv e u s a n y; its arg u m en ts are p u re ly se m an tic

— in a ca se i n w hi ch se m anti cs ( the c onventi onall ega l m eani ng o f“di sco ver y”) f avo rs the othe r si de. T he pu rp os e of au th orizi ng stays of state-cou rt d isc ov er y re lat in g t o fe d er a l se c u rit ies litiga tio n is si m i l arto thato fthe enhanced ple adingr equi re m en ts of th e P r i v a t e S e c u r i t i e s L i t i g a t i o n R e f o r m Ac ta ti s su e i n the Tel labs l i ti gat i on, se e Tella bs, Inc. v. M a k o r Issues & Righ t s , Lt d. , 551 U
. S. 3 0 8 , 3 2 0

- 2 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , a nd o n r e man d, 513 F. 3d 70 2, 705- 06 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ; se e a l so Blue C h i p S t a m ps v . M a no r D rugSto res, 42 1 U.S
. 72 3, 74 0- 42 (19 75 ); Sc hl e i ch e rv. We ndt, 618 F.3d 679 , 686 (7th C ir. 2010); C ozz arel liv. Inspire P harm aceuti cals Inc
. , 54 9 F
. 3d 618, 62 3- 24 ( 4th Ci r. 2008 ) , and ofthe Suprem e Cour t’ s r ecent Iq b al a nd Tw om blyd ec i sio n s, Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. 19 37, 19 49 -50 , 195 3 (2 00 9 ) ; B el l Atlanti c Corp. v. Tw om bly, 55 0 U
. S. 54 4, 55 7- 59 ( 2007 ) ; se e a l so C o o n ey v . Ro ssiter, 58 3 F.3 d 96 7, 97 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Francis v. Giacom el li, 58 8 F
. 3d 18 6, 1 93 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. I t i s t o p reve nts et tl ement extor ti on

— usi ng di sco ver y t o i m pose asy m m etr i c co sts o n de fen dan ts i n o r der to f o r ce a se tt l ementa dva nt ag eo us to the pl ai nti ffr ega rdl ess of t h e m er i ts ofhi s s uit
.N o. 10

- 1963 9 Th o r o g o o d v . S e a rs , R o e b u c k& Co. , N o . 1 0

- 2 4 0 7, 2 0 1 0 WL 42 83 63 7 a t *6 -8 (7 th C ir. N ov . 2 , 2 01 0). T h at p u rp os e c ou ld be thw ar ted i fthe pla in tiffi n a federa lse curi ti es sui t, by fi l i ng a paral l elsui t in sta te cour t under state secur i ti es l aw ag ai nst the sam e defe nd ant that he had sued i n federa l c ou rt, co uld use st ate di sco ver y pr oce du re to i mpo s e th e v e r y b u r d e n s o nth e d e fe n d a n tt h a tt h e P S L R A, be f ore the a m en dm en t m ade b y S LU S A autho r i zing st ay s o f di sc o ve r y unde r st at e l aw, so ug ht to l i ft by th e au to m at ic s ta y; th e a m en d m e n t c los ed a loo p h ole
. M er ri ll Lynch, Pier ce, Fe nner& Sm ith Inc. v. D abit, 54 7 U .S
. 71 , 81

- 82 (20 06 ); Gavi n v . AT& T Corp. , 464 F. 3d 634, 640 (7th C ir. 20 06 ); Ins titu to D e P rovis ion M il it ar v. M er ri ll Lynch , 546 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2008). Bu tthe c o nc e r n wi th s e t t l e men te xt o r t i o n tha t und er l i es the o ri gi nal a n d am ended p ro vi si ons does not j usti fy th e int er preta ti on ur ged byM enasha. Fo r as i s typi calo fpub lic-r eco rds s tatutes, the cos ts ass oci ate d wi th r e s po nd i ngt o r e qu e s t s f o r a c c e s s t o p ub l i c r e c o r ds unde r W i sconsin’s pub l i c- r ec o r ds l aw a r e ch ar g ed to the p erson m aking th e requ est. W is . St at. § 19.35(3); Cityo fM enasha, Publ i c Reco rds Noti ce a nd Pol i cy 3,w w w . cityo f m en ash a-w i. gov/con ten t/d ep artm en ts/- c i t y

_ c l e r k / d o c u m e n t s / P U B L IC % 2 0 R E C O R D S% 20 N O T IC E. pdf ( vi si te d N o v. 1, 20 10 )
. Altho ug h th e st atute and ci ty re gul ati on don’ t s peci fy that the charge forpro du cti on o fp ub l i c r e c o r ds i nc l ud e s the t i me o f the s t a ffi n r e s po nd

i ng to a re quest ( l aborco sts ) , the sta tute al l ows the publ i cre cor ds offi ces to charg e fees r efl ecting the “a ctual, nece ssar y a nd di re ct c osto fr epro du cti on a nd tr ansc rip tio n o fthe r ec o r d, ” W i s. S ta t. § 1 9. 35 ( 3) ( a) , a nd b oth a r ec en t10 N o. 10

- 1963

c as e, W IR E da ta, Inc. v. Vil lage o f Su ssex , 75 1 N
. W
. 2d 736, 762 ( W i s. 20 08) , and an o l der o pini on o fthe A tto rney Generalo fW i sco nsi n, 72 O pi ni ons of theA t t or ney Ge ne r al of the Stateof Wis consin 15 0- 51 ( Se pt. 16 , 1 98 3), m ake cl ear th atthe fees ca n inc l ude l ab o r e xpe ns es . In a ny e ve nt ther e i s no exp en se t o the defendant, as he doe sn’ t hav e to r um m ag e th r o ug h hi s fi l es to r es po nd to a de m an d f ori nfo rm ati on

— at l eas t q ua defendant; i t i s happenstance th ati n thi s ca se the cu sto di ano fthe r ec o r ds an d th e d e fe n d a n ta r e o n e a n d t h e s a me

— the Ci ty ofM enasha. The City s houl dn ’ t be al l owed to use i ts du alst atus to gain an advantag e o vero therdefendants in pri vate secur i ti es l i ti gat i on. A nd w h i l e i t’ s t rue that i fA m er i can Ban kus es a ny o fthe i nf o r m ati o n i t g l ea ns fr o m the re cor ds to o pp ose the m oti on th at t h e Ci ty has fi l ed to dism i ss the c l ass act i on su it the Ci ty’ s l aw yer s wil lhave to an a ly ze th e inform ation, so w il l A m erican B an k’s law ye rs ; th e a n aly sis co st s a re sy m m et ric al. The City acknowle dges that i t coul dn ’ t refuse a newsp ap er ’s re q u es t fo r th e re c or d s, an d th e n ew sp ap er w o u ld be fr ee to pu bl i sh the m . Yet i t cl ai m s a r i ght t o an ev en b ro ad er st ay th an t h e d i st ric t c ou rtgra n te d it

— to a s tay that w oul d fo rbi d A m er i can Bank t o sugge st to a newspap erthati t r equest an d p ubl i sh the r eco rds, o r eve n h in t at such a sugg est i on byte l l i ng a re port erthat the r e mi g htbe so me i nt e r e s t i ngstuffi n the p ub l i c - r e c o r ds o f f i c e a b o u t t h e C i t y ’ s mi s b e g o t t en po wer - pl an t con ve r si o n pr oj ec t. And s o a no th ero bj ec ti o n t o the Ci ty’ s posi ti on in thi s ca se is that i t would i nvi te sat el l i te l i ti gati on o vereff or ts to ci rcum vent a s tayand eve n ra i se questi ons und erthe Fi rs t Am endm ent.N o. 10

- 1963 11 It w ou ld als o c re at e a p re c ed en t o f u n m an ag ea b le sc o pe. S uppo se a ne wspa perr epo r te r ha d r eque st ed an d obt ai ned re cord s o fthe City ’ s co nver si on fi asco but had not pu bl i sh ed anyth ing. C ou ld A m erican B an k’s lawye r s as khi m abo utwhathe ha d f o und in h i s se ar ch ? Or w ou ld thatb e “di sc o ve r y ” to o ? W ha t i fthe law ye rs se ar c h G o o g l e u n d er “C ity of M en as h a s ec u riti es l i ti gat i on. ” I s that “ d iscover y”

— f ori ftheydo that, th eywi l l fi nd a r ti cl es tha t con ta i n inf o r m at i o n abo ut the litig at ion t h at t h ey m igh t find useful. S ee, e.g. , “M en ash a E d uc ates R esid en ts on V ote o v e r W PP I ’s En er gy Purchase o fM enasha U ti l i ti es A sse ts ,” M ar . 21 , 2010 , w w w . p ostcres cen t.com /articl e/2010 0321 /A PC 0101 /- 32 10497/M enasha- educates-re sid en ts -on -vo te -ov er -W P P IEn er gy- pu rchas e- of

- M enasha- U ti l i ti es- ass ets ( vi si ted Oct. 27, 20 10)
. In rej ecting an att em pt to “e xem pt pri vate an d cit ize n litiga n ts from th e rig h t t o d is c l os u re of p u b lic re cor ds i fthe m ate ri als s ought potenti al l y r el ate to a m att erunder l i ti gat i on be tw ee n the parti es, ” Stateex re l. Lan k v. Rze ntkows ki, sup ra , 416 N
. W
. 2d at 637- 38, expl ai ned that “ci rcum venti on o f the sta tute und er such an i nter pretat i on co uld be acc om pli shed w i th ea se and i m pu ni ty. N othing in [the] ar gum ent woul d precl ud e a per son, not a party to the und er l yi ng l i ti gat i on, f ro m ri ghtfu lly d em an di ngthe mate r i al s an d the n tur ningthe m o ve r to the l i ti g an ts who o th er wi se woul d b e den i ed th em. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . . . w o u l d e n c o u r a g e s u r r e p t i t i o u s c i r c u mventing ofthe sta tute. W e are hesi tant to adopt an inter pretation w hic h r e d u ces a law to suc h u ne nforcea ble statu re an d h old s itou t t o rid icu le ra th er th an res p ec t.”12 N o. 10

- 1963 The City’ s pos i ti on i s not on ly w ro ng; i fo ne l oo ks to the future i t i s futi l e. The Ci ty ackno w l edges th at had A m er ican Bank r equeste d the r eco rds befo refi l i ng su i t, the r e woul d ha ve b ee n n o g r o und f o r r efus i ngthe requ est. So th e only effect (beyon d this case) o f ou r affi rm ing the district cou r t w o uld be tha t in the futu re pri vate secur i ti es pla i nti ff s w oul d fi l e their p u bl i cre cor ds re quests a few weeks orm onths bef ore rather than ( as i n thi s ca se) a few weeks afterfi l i ng sui t. O f co u rs e if st a t e s c re at e d isc ov er y p ro c ed u re s b u t c all th em “r eq u es ts for p u b lic rec or d s,” p er h ap s b y d ee m in g a ll re c or d s in th e files of p riv at e c or p or at ion s p u b lic, th is wo ul d not de fe a ta mo t i o n f o r a s t a y . S ub s t a nc e t r umps f or m . But i n thi s ca se substa nce a nd f or m co i nci de. T h e jud gm en t g ra n tin g a st ay is R EVER S ED .

11- 29- 10