2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-13-2009 

# P ichle r v . UNITE, et al
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 08-2354

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P ichle r v . UNITE, e t al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 178. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/178PR EC ED EN TI AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

_____________ No. 08- 2354

_____________ EL I ZA BE TH PI CH LE R; KA TH LE EN KE LL Y; RU SS EL L

C H R IS T IA N ; D E B O RA H B R O WN ; SETH NYE; HOLLY MARSTON; KEVI N QUI NN; J OSE L . S A B A S T R O ; D E B O RA H A . S A B A S T R O ; TH OM AS RI LE Y; AM Y R I LE Y; RU SS EL L D AU BE RT ;

C A R R I D A U B E R T , v. UN I TE ( UN I ON OF NE ED LE TRAD ES , I ND US TR I AL AND TEXTILE EMP LOYEES, AFL- CI O) , A NEW YORK UNI NCORPORATED ASSOCI ATI ON; BRUCE RAYNOR,

A N E W Y O R KR E S ID E N T ; IN T E R N A T IO N A L B R O T H E R H O O D T E A M S T E R S ,

DOES 1- 10
NATI ONAL RI GHT TO W ORK LEGAL DEFENSE

FOUNDATI ON INC, In terv en o r in

D. C. /Appe l l antT he H onor abl e J os eph I r enas , Seni or D i s t r i ct J udge of t he * U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f

N e w J e r s e y, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2 O n A p p eal F ro m

th e U n itedS tates D istrict C o u rt fo r the East er

n D is tr ic t of P ennsy lvania ( Ci v. No. 2- 04- c v- 02841) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n . S tew art D alzell Ar gue d: Fe br

uary 2, 2009 B ef o re: M cK E E an dS T A P L E T O N , Circ uit J ud ges and I RENAS, Se ni or

Di s tr i c t J udge * ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Nove m

be r 13, 2009)
W I LLI AM L. MESSENGER, ESQ. ( Ar gue d) W I LL I AM J
. YO UN G, ES Q. Na t i ona l Ri ght

t o W ork Le ga l De fe ns e Founda t i on 80 01 Braddo ck Ro ad Sui t e 600 Spr i ngfi e l d, VA 22160 At t or ne yf or I nt e rv e nor i n D. C. - Appe l lant LAW RENCE T. HOYLE, ESQ. ( Ar gue d) A R L E N E F IC K L E R , E S Q
. Ho yle , Fic kler , Her sc hel & Mathes On e Sou th Broad S tr ee t Sui t e 1500I n J ul y of 2004, U N I T E m er ged w i t h t he H ot el E m pl oy ees 1 and R es t aur ant E m pl oy ees I nt er nat i onal U ni on ( “H E R E ”) and t h e c o m b i n e d e n t i t y b e c a m e k n o w n a s “ U NI T E H E R E
. ” We w ill r e f e r t o th e u n io n s im p ly as “ U N IT E .” 3 Phi l a de l phi a , PA 19107 Attorney s f or UN ITE –Ap pellee OPI NI ON M cK ee, Ci r c ui t

J udge . The Na t i ona l Ri ght

t o W ork Le ga l De fe ns e Founda t i on ( “ NRTW ” ) a

ppe a l s the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s or de r

de nyi ng i t s m ot i on to m o d if y a p r o tectiv e o rd er th at restricts access to certain
r e c o r d s . F o r

th e r e a s o n s th a t

f o l l o w , w e w i l l a f

f i rm. I . Fac t ual Bac k gr ound. In the fall of 20 02 , the Un ion of N ee dletra des, Indu stri al & Texti le Em

ploy ee s AFL -CIO (“ UN ITE”) deci ded to launch 1
auni o n or gani z i ng c a m

pa i gn t ar ge t i ng CI NTAS Cor por a t i on, th e l ar g e s t d o m e s t i c e m

p l o ye r i n th e i n du s tr i a l l au n d ry i n du s try.T h e In terna ti o n al B roth erh o o d o f T e am sters A F L -C IO 2 r epr es ent ed s om e of U N I T E ’ s empl oy ees , and U N I T E an d t he T eamst er s t her efor e agr eed t o w or k t oget her t o or gani ze C IN T A S e m p lo y e e s. T h e T e a m s ter s a re n o t in v o lv e d in th is a p p e a l. 4 CI NTAS e m

pl oy s a ppr oxi m a t e l y

2 8 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e at

3 5 0 l o c a t i ons in the Unite d S tate s and Canada. Many of those em ploy ee s are fem al e, Blac k, or Hispanic
. UN ITE i niti at ed that

cam paign b ec ause it

beli eved that CI NTAS w a s p ayi n g l o w w a g e s , o f f e r i n g p o o r

b e n e f i t s , and
sub j e c tin g its em

p lo y ees to u n saf

e w o rk in g co n d itio n s, d iscrim in ato ry

p ractices, an dv io latio n s o f v ario u s lab o r law s. 2

“ CI NTAS .
. . i s phi l os ophi c a l l y op p o sed t o uni ons and uni on organizi ng .” P i c h l e r

v . U NITE , 5 4 2 F .3d 3 80 , 383 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). U N I T E th eref

o re b eliev edth at its o rg an izin g ef f o rts woul d not

be s uc c e s s ful unl e s s r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s o f the uni on visi te d em

ploy ee s’ ho m es beca

use em ploy ee s w ou ld no t s peak5 fr e e l y on the job whe r e the y

c oul d be obs e rve d by

m ana ge m e nt
and e xpos e d t o c oe r c i on a nd/ or r e t a l i a t i on. In o rd er t o c ont a c t CI NTAS e m pl oy e e s i n the i r

hom e s, UN ITE com

pile d lis ts of

na me s and addres se s of p re sum ed CINT AS wo rker s fro m a vari ety of source s. Th e s ou rc es i nc l ud e d l i c e ns e pl a t e nu m be r s of c ar s parked i n C I NT AS p ark in g lo ts. T h e l i c e n s e p late n u m b ers w ere u sedto o b tain
na m e s and a ddr e s s e s of the r e gi s t e r e d owne r s of the r e s pe c t i ve cars f ro m d atab ases co n tain in g state m o to r v eh icle reco rd s, a te chniqu e kno wn as “t agging .” Ta gg i ng wa s ge ne r a l l y a c c om pl i s hed by

UN I TE
or gani z e r s e nt e r i ng or

obs e rvi ng aCI NTA S parki ng l ot and
reco rd in g licen se p late n u m b e r s o f cars. T h e licen se p late
n u m b ers w ere th en ch eck edb y u sin g eith er a Westlaw d atab ase
or pr i va t e i nve s t i ga t or s known a s “ i nform a t i on b ro k e r s . ” The i nform a t i on br oke r s woul d

– ei the r di r e c t l y or thr ough6 inte rm ediari es – o btai n the o w n er s’ nam es and add re ss es th ro u g h state m o to r v eh icle b u reau s. T h is allo w edUN IT E to obt a i n n a m e s anda ddr e s s e s of e m pl oy e e s wh o m i gh t

supp ort
un i on i z i ng CINT AS , a nd ita l s o a l l ow e d UNI TE t o i de nt i fy pot e nt i a l pl a i nt i ffs and c ons tr uc t apl a i nt i ff c l a s s c ons i s t i ng of ap p ro x im ately

1 ,8 0 0 t o 2 ,0 0 0 C IN T A S em p lo y ees. T h e class
a c t i on s ubs e que nt l y

a s s e rt e d c l a i m s a ga i ns t C IN TAS for
v io latin g v ario u s em

p lo y m en t law s. According to West law’s r ec ords, UNITE co n du ct ed
a ppr oxi m a t e l y

13, 700 m ot or

ve hi c l e s e ar c he s on W e s t l aw fr om A u g u st o f

2 0 0 2 to O cto b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 . H o w ev er, so m e o f th o se
se ar ches were du plic at es and som e d id no t res ult in the re tr ie val of a ny i nform a t i on. Of the t ot a l W e s t l aw s e ar c he s c onduc t e d by UNI TE, a

ppr oxi m a t e l y

1, 576 pe rt a i ne d t o CI NTAS. The
re m ai nd er

of the s earc hes - approx im at el y 12 ,000 in nu m

ber - di d not pe rt a i n t o i ndi vi dua l s r e l a t e d t o UNI TE’ s l aborT he group i ncl udes C I N T A S em pl oy ees , as w el l as s pous es 3 and fr i ends of empl oy ees , w hos e ca r s w er e dr i ven t o w or k by em ploy ees. 7 or gani z i ng c a m

pa i gn a t CI NTAS. Thi s a

ppe a l c e nt e r s ar ound Westlaw ’s recreatio n o f

th o se 1 2 ,0 0 0 search es. Th e nam ed plai ntiffs in this ca se , Eli za beth Pi ch le r, Kathle en F. Kell y , Debo ra h Brow n, Ru ss el l Chris ti an, Car ri D aub e rt , H o l l y M ar s t o n , S e th N ye , K e v i n Q u i n n , A my R i l e y, Thom a s Ri l e y , De bor ah A. Saba s tr o, J os e L. Saba s tr o and Rus s e l l Daube rt

a l l ha ve s om e c onne c t i on t o CI NTAS’ s pl ant in Emm aus, Penn sylvania
. Em ploy ee s Pic hler , Q ui nn , Tho m as 3 Rile y and Jose Sabas tr o b egan com plai ning abou t UNITE ’s
ac ti on s and inqu ir ing into h ow UN ITE cou ld have ob ta ined th eir h o m e ad d resses. Em pl oy e e c om

pl a i nt s e ve nt

ua l l y c a m e t o the a t t e nt i on of C I N T A S ’ s o u t s i d e c o u n s e l , J e f f r e y I
. K o h n , o f O ’ M e l v e n y &8 My e r s . K o h n , i n t

urn, c ont a c t e d Paul R. Ros e n, of Spe c t or G ad o n & R o sen , P .C ., to in q u ire w h eth er h e h adan y in terest in
re pr e s e nt i ng e m

pl oy e e s wh o w e r e up s e t abo ut wh a t ha d h a p p e n e d
. I n A p r i l 2 0 0 4 , e m p l o ye e s P i c h l e r , B r o w n , K e l l y, Ny e, Ru ss el l Daubert , Tho m as Rile y and Jose Sabas tr o , m et wi th Kohn an d J a m e s Buc c i of Spe c t or Ga don. Kohn in tro du cedh im self a n d a s k edth e em p lo y ees to d escrib e th eir
e nc ount e r s wi th the uni on or gani z e r s . Soon a ft e r the m e e t i ng, Bu cc i c on ta ct ed no nem ploy ee s Chris ti an Mars ton , C ar ri Daub ert, Amy

Rile y and D eborah Sabastro b y te le ph on e. U ltim ately , S p ecto r G ad o n w as retain edto b rin g a law su it ag ain st UN IT E b asedo n UN IT E ’s tag g in g o p eratio n . On June 28, 2004, Spe c t or G ad o n fi l e d al aws ui t on be ha l f of the na m e d pl a i nt i ffs
. A fe w we e ks l a t e r , aone - c ount
a m e nd e d c l a s s a c t i on c om pl a i nt wa s fi l e d, a l l e gi ng that

UN I TE
an d B ru ce R ay

n o r, UN IT E ’s p resid en t (h erein af ter co llectiv ely9 “ UNI TE” ) , vi ol a t e d the D r i v e r ’ s Pr i va c y Pr ot e c t i on Ac t

of 1994 (“D P P A ”), 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 7 2 1 -2 5 . UN IT E m o v edto d ism iss the a m e nd e d c om

pl a i nt un de r Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b)( 6); h o w ev er, th e d istrict c o u r t d e n iedth e m o tio n . Pichle r v . UNI TE , 339 F. Su pp . 2d 6 65 (E.D. Pa. 20 04 ) ( “P ich ler I ” )
. On M ay 31 , 200 5, the dis tr ic t c ou rt ce rt ifie d a cl as s t o p roce ed
a g a i n s t UN I T E , th o u g h n o t

a g a i n s t R ay n o r , an dd i s mi s s e ds o me
o f th e p lain tif

f s f o r lacko f stan d in g . Pi c hl e r

v . UNI TE , 228 F.R.D. 23 0 ( E.D. Pa. 200 5) (“Pichle r I I ” )
. On Augus t

30, 2006, the di s tr i c t c ou rt fo un d that UN I TE ha d vi ol a t e d the DP PA , gr ant e d s umm ary

judgm e nt

a ga i ns t UNI TE, awar de d the pl a i nt i ffs $2, 500 e a c h, and gr ant e d s umm ary judgm e nt i n fa vor of Ray nor . Pi c hl e r

v . UNI TE , 446 F. Su pp . 2d 3 53 (E.D. Pa. 20 06 ) ( “ P ichler

II I ” )
. Pur s uant

t o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 54( b) , the di s tr i c t c ou rt a l s o c e rt i fi ed the c a s e fo r a pp e l l a t e r e vi e w, de fe rr i ng the qu e s t i on s abo ut c l a s s - wi de andi nj un c t i ve r e l i e f.10 F in ally , o n O cto b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d istrict c o u rt am en d edits pr e vi ou s ju dg m e nt

a ndgr ant e d s um

m ary ju dg m e nt

t o UNI TE
o n th e i s s u e o f

p u n itiv e d am ag es. Pi c hl e r v . UNI TE , 457 F. Su pp . 2d 5 24 (E.D. Pa. 20 06 ) ( “Pichle r I V ”) . The distri ct

court
a l s o p erm an en tly

en j o in edUN IT E an dits em

p lo y e e s fr om

us i ng
or di s c l os i ng any

of th e p l a i nt i ffs ’ pe r s ona l i nform a t i on ob ta ined by

UN ITE in v io la ti on of

the DPP A. Bo th si des
a ppe a l e d. W e a ffi rm e d th e d is tr i c t c ourt i n part , va c a t e d and
r e m ande d i n pa rt
. Al though s e ve r a l i s s ue s we r e rais e d dur i ng tha t a ppe a l , the onl y

issu e r e l e vant

t o our i nqui ry he r e i s the ch allen g e t o UN IT E ’s tag g in g o p eratio n , an dth e p lain tif f s’ cl ai m th at it v iolate d the DP PA . W e a ff ir m ed the dis tr ic t
c our t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a t

UN I T E h a dv i o l a t e dth e D P P A by
a c c e s s i ng pl a i nt i ffs ’ m ot or ve hi c l e r e c or ds dur i ng i t s t a ggi ng
o p eratio n . Pi c h ler v. UNI TE , 542 F. 3d 380 ( 3d Ci r . 2008)A “‘ Pr o t e c t i v e Or d e r ’ p r o p e r l y d e n o t e s c o u r t o r d e r s o v er 4 i nfor m at i on excha nged dur i ng di s cover y . ” P ans y v. B or ough of Str ou dsbu rg , 2 3 F
. 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 7 n . 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t i n g F e d
. R. C iv . P . 2 6 (c ))
. 11 (“P ich ler V

”)
. A. Th e Protec ti ve Order. S h o rtly af ter th e d istrict co u rt d en iedUN IT E ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s pur s uant

t o Fe d. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , UNI TE fi l e d a
m otion f or a prote ct ive order wh ic h it c la im ed wa s nec es sary 4 t o s a fegua r d the pr i va c y of the i ndi vi dua l s i nvol ve d i n the P ich ler c l a s s a c t i on, pr e ve nt di s c l os ur e of UNI TE’ s or gani z i ng strate gy , a nd al so prevent CINT AS from using the P ich ler class
ac ti on as a t ac ti ca l wea

p o n ag ai nst UNITE . The distri ct court is sued the r equest ed protec ti ve order on January 7, 20 05 . That order al lows UN ITE to d es ignate “potenti al evidence a s
co n f id en t i a l if

th at p o ten tial ev id en ce d irectly relates to d ef en d an ts’ lab o r u n io n o rg an izin g o r m o b ilizatio n strateg ies.”12 (J . App . 29.) Acc ording to UN ITE, the prote ct ive order has al lowed the Pichle r

c l a s s a c t i o n t o p r o c e e di n d e p e n d e n t l y of bo th UN I T E ’ s o r g an i z i n g e f f o rt s a n dth e o n g o i n g l i t i g a t i on i nvol vi ng UNI TE a nd CI NTAS. Th e prote ct ive order

in the Pichle r

c l a s s a c t i on pe rt a i ns to th e re cords that wer e dis cl osed in re spon se to the Pichle r plai ntiff s’ su bp oena duc es t e c um a s we l l a s the t e s t i m on y of a rep resen tativ e o f

th e co m p an y w h ich o p erates Westlaw . T h o se
r e c or ds i nc l ud e d W e s t l aw’ s r e c r e a t i on of the s e ar c he s UN I TE
c on du c t e d b e twe e n Jul y

1, 20 02 andOc t ob e r 13 , 20 04
. UN I TE de s i gna t e d thos e r e c or d s a s c onfi de nt i a l pur s uant t o the p ro tectiv e o rd er, an dth eref o re n ev er f

iled th em w ith th e co u rt. A cco rd in g ly , th ey

n ev er b ecam e p art o f

th e j u d icial reco rd
. Mos t i m port ant l y for our pur pos e s , the di s c l os e d r e c or ds tha t ar e s ubje c t

t o the pr ot e c t i ve or de r i nc l ude the na m e s of the
a ppr oxi m a t e l y 12, 000 pe opl e whos e m ot or ve hi c l e i nform a t i on13 w as acc e s s e d b y

UN IT E , b u t w h o w ere n o t co n n ectedto UNI TE’ s uni on or gani z i ng c a m pa i gn a t CI NTAS, and who
were no t pu tati ve m em

bers o f the Pichle r

class actio n ag ain st UN ITE (the “ Disputed Sear ch Records”)
. As we m e nt i one d a t

the out s e t , thi s a

ppe a l ar i s e s fr om th e d i s t r i ct co u rt’s ref

u sal to m o d if

y th at p ro tectiv e o rd er to
a l l ow the NRTWa c c e s s t o the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c o rd s. The N R T W is a f

o u n d atio n th at d escrib es itself as “a n o n -p ro f

it, le gal a id organiza ti on that p ro vides i nf orm at ion and le gal assistan ce to em

p lo y ees w h o h av e su f

f eredv io latio n s o f

th eir rig h ts as a resu lt o f co m

p u lso ry u n io n ism .” (A p p ellan t’s B r. 7 .) Th e NR TWs um

m ar i z e s i t s i nt e r e s t

i n the P i c h l er c l a s s a c t i on as f o llo w s: “[ T ] h e [ N R T W] seek s to in f o rm in d iv idu als w h o se
m otor vehicl e r eco rd s were se ar ched by UN ITE, and w ho ar e out s i de the Pl a i nt i ff Cl a s s , tha t UNI TE a c c e s s e d the i r

m ot or
v e hi c l e r e c or ds i n pot e nt i a l vi ol a t i on of the DPPA.”14 (App el lant’s Br. 8.)

B. Th e NRT W’s Att em pt to Inte rvene. On Jul y 30, 2007, the NRTWs e nt al e t t e r t o c ouns e l for the Pichle r

plai ntiffs re qu es ti ng ac ce ss to the Disputed Sear ch Re c or ds for

the pur pos e of c ont a c t i ng the a

ppr oxi m a t e l y

12, 000 i ndi vi dua l s whos e m ot or ve hi c l e rec or ds we r e a c c e s s e d by UNI TE, w ho ar e not

c onne c t e d t o UNI TE’ s uni on or gani z i ng
c a m pa i gn a t CI NTAS, and who ar e not put a t i ve m e m

be r s of the Pichle r class. Pichle r c l a s s c ouns e l r e s ponde d by i nform i ng the NR TW th at th ey

had n o o bj ec ti on to such disc losure if it was consis te nt with the l im it at ions im po se d b y the dis tr ic t c ou rt ’s p ro tectiv e o rd er an dth e D P P A . C lass co u n sel ag reedn o t to ob ject to the N RT W’ s i nter

vention in the Pichle r

l i t i ga t i on, but
s t a t e d tha t th ey

woul d t a ke no pos i t i on on the m e r i t s of the N R T W’s ef

f o rts to o b tain th e reco rd s. The r e a f ter, on Se pt e m

be r 19, 2007, whi l e the15 in te rl ocutory

appeal of

the dis tr ic t c ou rt ’s grant of summ ar y judgm en t i n Pichle r I

II w as p en d in g , th e N R T W m o v edto in te rvene i n the Pichle r

c l a s s a c t i o n . T h e N R T Wa s k e dthe
c ourt t o m odi fy

the pr ot e c t i ve or de r

t o a l l ow it to a c c e s s the Di s put e d Se ar c h R eco r ds i n or de r t o not i fy

e a c h of the approx im at el y

12 ,000 individu al s wh ose nam es and add re ss es
ar e c on ta ined in the D is pu te d Sear ch Records that their privac y rig h ts u n d er th e D P P A m ay h av e b een v io latedb y

UN IT E
. If a l l owe d a c c e s s t o the r e c or ds , the NRTW i nten d s to in f o rm th o se in d iv idu als th a t U N IT E m ay h av e v io latedth eir ri gh ts un der the DP PA . The NR TW re pres ente d to the dist ri ct
c ourt tha t i t woul d us e the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds t o m a i l one le tt er to ea ch of the 12 ,000 individu al s to info rm them that UN IT E accessedth eir m o to r v eh icle reco rd s. T h e p ro p o sedletter states: Th e [N RT W] is a no n-prof it le gal- ai d organiz at ion that16 pr ovi de s i nform a t i on and fr e e l e ga l a dvi c e and re presenta ti on to em

ploy ee s who have suff er ed violat ions of

thei r r ights a s a

re sult of co m pu ls ory u n i o n i s m.
******* If y ou r [si c] are inte re st ed in d et er m ining w hether UN ITE’s s earc h o f y ou r m otor vehicl e r ec ords violat ed y o u r rig h ts u n d e rth e D riv er’s P riv acy P ro tectio n A ct, y o u sho uld con ta ct

an attorney . I f y ou wish, you can c ont a c t the [NRTW ] t o l e arn about y our r i ght s and o p tio n s u n d er th e D riv er’s P riv acy P ro tectio n A ct. (J . App . 118 -19.) UNI TE s ought

t o pr e ve nt

the NRTW fr om

a c c e s s i ng the D isp u tedS earch R eco rd s. UN IT E co n ten d edth at “N R T W is phi l os ophi c a l l y

oppos e d t o UNI TE’ s or gani z i ng a c t i vi t i e s , and the i nf orm at ion N RT W s ee ks can b e use d to rever se engineer
o r g an i z i n g s tr a t e g i e s an d

co m b at U N IT E ’s o rg an izin g m issio n .” (J. A p p . 9 .) On Fe br uary 7, 200 8 , the di s tr i c t

c ourt gr ant e d the NRTW ’ s m ot i on t o i nt e rve ne , but de ni e d the NRTW ’ s m ot i onT he r i ght of ac ces s t o j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs and j udi ci al 5 re c o rd s is b e y o n d d is p u te
. P an sy v. B orou gh of St roud sburg , 23 F
. 3d 77 2 (3d C i r. 19 94 ) (ci t at i on s o m i t t ed). H ow ever, becau se t he document s t he N R T W s eeks have ne ver been f i l ed w i t h t he di s t r i ct cour t , t hey ar e not j udi ci al re co rds , and, t her efor e, t he N R T W cann ot obt ai n acce ss t o them un der t he ri gh t of ac cess 17 to m od ify the protec ti ve order. Th e dis tr ic t c ou rt explai ned that

“ NRTW ’ s onl y

bas i s for

a c c e s s i ng thi s i nform a t i on i s the
c omm on l aw r i ght

of a c c e s s t o judi c i a l r e c or ds ; the y do not , and
we be l i e ve c annot , poi nt t o any othe r c omm on l aw, s t a t

ut ory , or Con s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t th a t w o u l d c r e a t e a p a th o f a c c e s s t o t he do cum ents they d es ir e. . . .” (J . App . 10-11 .) Th e c ou rt explai ned f

urther that “what NRT W s eek s h as no t bee n f il ed
w ith th e co u rt in an y

m o tio n s o r p lead in g s; in stead , it co n sists of defend ants ’ produ ct ion to the p la inti ff s; such do cum ents ar e
raw d isco v ery

an dare o rd in a r ily

in accessib le to th e p ub lic thr ough the c omm on l aw r i ght of a c c e s s ; thus , N RTWha s no p ath o f access to th is in f

o rm atio n o r a p resu m

p tiv e rig h t to it.” 5d o c tr in e . Id . at 7 8 0 -8 3 . T h e N R T W d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t it cannot obt ai n t he document s under t he r i ght of ac ces s doct r i ne. 18 (J. A p p . 1 2 .) On Fe b r u ary 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , th e N R T Wm o v e df or
reco n sid eratio n , arg u in g th at it n ev er c l a i me dit h ada p ub lic ri gh t o f ac ce ss to the docum ents . Rather, the NRT W had rel ie d
o n t h e f act th at Pichle r

c l a s s c o u n s e l w o u l dp r o v i d e the doc um e nt s t o i t

but for the pr o tect i ve or de r

pr ohi bi t i ng d isclo su re. On Ap ri l 15, 20 08 , the distri ct court denie d the NR TW’s
m o tio n f o r reco n sid eratio n . T h e d istrict co u rt clarif iedth at in i t s Fe br uary 7, 2008 or de r , i t

ha d “ he l d tha t NRTWdi d not ha ve
s t andi ng t o s e e k the do c um e nt s i n que s t i on be c aus e i t ha d no pa th of a c c e s s t o the doc um e nt s , i
. e . , the r e i s no l e ga l ba s i s for NR TW to get at t

hese d o cu ments other

than the fact

that plai ntiffs have them .” (J . App . 3.) In the a lt er nati ve, the dis tr ic tW e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r th e c o llate ra l o rd e r do c trin e to 6 r evi ew t he deni al of t he m ot i on t o m odi fy t he P r ot ect i ve O r der a n d th e d e n ia l o f

th e m o tio n t o r e c o n s id e r. See Shi ngar a v. Ski l es , 420 F. 3d 301, 304- 05 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. O ur r evi ew i s for abus e of di s cr et i on, but w e exe r ci s e pl enar y r evi ew over t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s i nt er pr et at i on and appl i cat i on of t he l egal s ta n d a rd f

o r g ra n tin g o r m o d if

y i n g a c o n f

id e n tia lity o rd e r. Id
. a t 3 0 5 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). 19 c ourt h eld th a t , e ve n i f the NRTWdi d ha ve s t andi ng,
m o d if icatio n o f th e p ro tectiv e o rd er w o u ldn o t b e ap p ro p riate unde r the a ppl i c abl e l e ga l s t andar d. Thi s a ppe a l fol l owe d. 6 I I . The Dr i ve r ’ s Pr i vac y Pr ot e c t i on Ac t of 1994. T h e D P P A f

o rb id s state o f

f icials f ro m “ k n o w in g ly di s c l os [i ng] or

othe rwi s e m a k[i ng] a va i l abl e t o a ny pe r s on or enti ty : per sonal inf

orm at ion . . . a

bo ut any individu al ob ta ined by the de partm e nt

[of m ot or v eh icle s ] i n c onne c t i on wi th a
m ot or ve hi c l e r e c or d, ” unl e s s c e rt a i n s pe c i fi e d e xc e pt i ons t o the p ro h i b i t i o n ap p ly . 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 1 (a). T h e D P P A also20 pr ohi bi t s othe r s fr om

knowi ngl y

“ obt a i n[i ng] or

di s c l os [i ng] pers on al info rm at ion, f

rom a m otor vehicl e r ec ord” fo r an
u n law f u l p u rp o se an df

ro m “m ak [ in g ] f

alse rep resen tatio n [ s] to obt a i n any

pe r s ona l i nf

o rm a t i on fr om

an i ndi vi dua l ’ s m ot or
v e hi c l e r e c or d. ” 18 U. S. C. § 2722. Thos e who “ kn o w in g ly obt a i n[], di s c l os e [] or us e [] pe r s ona l i nform a t i on, fr om am ot or
ve hi c l e r e c or d” a r e “ l i abl e t o the i ndi vi dua l t o w hom the i nform a t i on pe rt a i ns . . . . ” 18 U. S. C. § 2724( a )
. I f ade fe ndant i s found l i abl e , ac ourt

m ay awa r d: (1) a ctu al dam ages , but no t l es s than liquidate d da m a ge s i n the a m ount

of $2, 500; ( 2) puni t i ve da m ag e s upon pr oof of wi l l ful or r e c kl e s s di s r e gar d o f the l aw; ( 3) r e a s onabl e a t t orne y s ’ fe e s and othe r l i t i ga t i on c os t s r e a s onabl y

i nc urr e d; and (4) s uch other prel im inar

y and e qu it able re li ef as the c ou rt dete rm ines to be approp ri at e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 4 (b ).21 Howe ve r , the DPPA als o s pe c i fi e s at ot a l of 14
e xc e pt i ons t o the ge ne r a l pr ohib ition a ga i ns t di s c l os i ng m ot or
v eh icle reco rd s. See 18 U. S. C. § 2721( b)
. I n Pi c hle r I II , the di s tr i c t c ourt r e je c t e d UNI TE’ s c l a i m tha t i t s t a ggi ng ope r a t i on f it w ith in tw o o f

th e 1 4 ex cep tio n s in th e D P P A , a n d t h at it sho u ld ther efore not be held lia ble for violat ing the DP PA ’s pr ohi bi t i ons . Thos e two e xc e pt i ons a l l ow a c c e s s i n c onne c t i on
w i th l i t i g a t i o n ( th e “ l i t i g a t i o n e x c e p t i o n ” ) o r f o r u s e b y a gove rnm e nt a l a ge nc y or any pr i va t e pe r s on or e nt i ty a c t i ng on
an a ge nc y ’ s be ha l f ( the “ a ge nc y e xc e pt i on” )
. Spe c i fi c a l l y , the litig a t i on e xc e pt i on s t a t e s tha t m ot or ve hi c l e r e c or ds m ay

be accessed : F o r u se in co n n ectio n w ith an y c iv il, crim in al, a dm i ni s tr a t i ve , or

ar bi tr a l pr oc e e di ng i n any Federa l, Stat e, or loca l court or agency or befo re any s e l f- r e gul a t ory body , i nc l udi ng the s e rvi c e of pr oc e s s , i nve s t i ga t i on i n a n t i c i p a t i on of l i t i ga t i on, an dth e ex ecu tio n o r en f o rcem en t o f

j u d g m en ts an do rd ers, o r p u rsu an t to a n o rd er o f a F ed eral,22 S tate, o r lo cal co u rt. 18 U. S. C. § 2721( b) ( 4)
. The a ge nc y e xc e pt i on a l l ows r e c or ds t o be a c c e s s e d “ [f]or us e by any gove rnm e nt a ge nc y , i nc l udi ng
an y co u rt o r law en f

o rcem en t ag en cy , in carry in g o u t its fu nc t i on s , or

any pr i vat e pe r s on or e nt i ty a c t i ng on be ha l f o f a Fe de r a l , St a t e , or l oc a l a ge nc y i n c ar ryi ng out i t s func t i ons . ” 18 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 1 (b )(1 ). As we have ju st

no te d, in defend ing against the Pichle r class actio n , UN IT E arg u ed th at tag g in g w as a p erm issib le u se
un der the li ti gati on and a gency exce ptions. UNITE contended tha t the l i t i ga t i on e xc e pt i on a ppl i e d be c aus e i t ha d obt a i ne d the pl a i nt i ffs ’ pe r s ona l i nform a t i on a s part of a unio n o rg ani z i ng
e ffort , a c t i vi ty

pr ot e c te d unde r

the Na t i ona l Labor

Re l a t i ons A ct. See 29 U.S.C. § 15 7. UN ITE als o argued that the agency
exce ption app li ed b ecause i t had subsequently file d di s c r i m i na t i on c har ge s a ga i ns t CI NTAS wi th the EEOC and“Fr om 2002 t hr ough O ct ober 13, 2004, U N I T E br ought or 7 as s i s t ed i n br i ngi ng agai n st C I N T A S, s i x fede r al cas es , t hr ee s t at e cour t cas es , ei ght een c har ges w i t h t he Equal E m pl oy m ent O ppor t uni t y C om m i s s i on ( “EE O C ”) , and four char ges w i t h t he O cc u p ati o n al S af

ety an d H ea lth A d m inist rati o n (“O S H A ”). P ichler III, 4 4 6 F. Su p p . 2 d a t 3 6 3 ( f o o t n o t e s o mi t t e d )
. “ UN I TE al s o fi l ed unfa i r l abor pr act i ce ch arg es w i t h var i ous offi ces of t he N at i onal L abor R el at i ons B oar d ( “N L R B ”) , s om e of w hi ch w er e s et t l ed w i t hout any ad m i s s i on of l i abi l i t y . ” Id
. “In a d d iti o n . . ., U N IT E
. . . file d a c h a r g e w ith th e O h io C iv il R ig h ts C o m m iss io n , an d th e C a lifo rn ia D e p a rtm e n t o f F a ir E m pl oy m ent and H ous i ng. ” Id
. 23 w as th eref

o re actin g as a p riv ate atto rn ey g en e r a l to erad icate
em ploy m ent dis cr im inat ion at CINT A S
. It fu rther c on te nd ed tha t the a ge nc y

e xc e pt i on a

ppl i e d be c aus e i t e i the r a s s i s t e d, or i t s e l f fi l e d, four

OHSA co mp l a i nt s a ga i ns t CI NTAS. The

7 dist ri ct court reject ed UN ITE’s con te ntions and con cl ud ed that UN IT E ’s tag g in g o p eratio n v io latedth e D P P A
. See Pic hler II I , 446 F. Supp. 2d a t

373- 74. I I I . Di s c us s i on. Al though the l i t i ga t i on i nvol vi ng UNI TE, CI NTAS, a nd24 the Pichle r cl as s is m

ulti facet ed and o ng oing , the dispute before
u s is d iscrete an d straig h tf o rw ard
. A s w e n o ted at th e o u t s et, the NRTWar gue s tha t

the di s tr i c t

c ourt e rr e d i n not

m odi fyi ng the prote ct ive order

to al low it a cc es s t o the Disp uted Sear ch R eco rd s. T h e d istrict co u rt h eldth at th e N R T W lack edstan d in g to
r e que s t m od i fi c a t i on of the pr ot e c t i ve or de r be c aus e the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds ar e not judi c i a l r e c or ds , and the NRTW the r e for e l a c ke d a pa th of a c c e s s . The NRTWc ont e nds
on a ppe a l th a t i t h a s s t an d i n g t o s e e k m o d i f i c a t i o n o f

t he p ro tectiv e o rd er, n o t b asedo n th e co mm o n law rig h t o f access to ju dici al re co rd s, bu t r ather beca use P ich ler cl as s c ou nsel woul d pr ovi de the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds t o NRTW i f not for the pr ot e c t i ve or de r . I n r e s pons e , UNI TE a r gue s tha t the N R T W lack s stan d in g u n d er th is seco n dth eo ry as w e ll. Be c aus e we a gr e e tha t

the NRTWl a c ks s t andi ng, tha t e nds ourS tand ing is a j u ri sd ict ion al re q u ir em en t un d er A rt icl e III. 8 S e e S o c ’y H ill T

o w e rs O w n e rs ’ A ss ’n v . R e n d e ll , 210 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2000)
. I n S teel C o. v. C i t iz ens f or a B et t er E nvi r onm ent , 5 2 3 U
. S
. 8 3 , 9 3 -10 2 (19 9 8 ), t h e S u p rem e C o u rt hel d t hat a fe der al cour t m ay gener al l y not r ul e on t he mer i t s of a case w i t ho ut fi rs t deter m i ning j uri sdi ct i on al i ssues. A c o n f id e n tiality o rd e r “ d e n o te[ s] a n y c o u rt o rd e r w h ich in 9 any w ay r es t r i ct s acc es s t o or di s cl os ur e of a ny fo rm of in f o rm a tio n o r p ro c e e d in g , inc lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to ‘p rotec ti v e o rde rs, ’ ‘seali n g o rde rs’ an d ‘sec rec y o rde rs. ’” P an sy , 23 F. 3d at 777 n. 1. 25 i nqui ry , we ne e d not

c o n sid e r the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s a l t e rna t i ve h o l d i n g th at m o d if

icatio n o f

th e p ro tectiv e o rd er is in ap p ro p riate o n th e m erits. 8 I n P a n sy v. B o ro u gh o

f S t r o u d sb u rg , we a ddr e s s e d a th i r dp arty ’ s s t an d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s or
co n f id e nt i a l i ty

or de r s i n an e ffort

t o a c c e s s i nform a t i on or 9 ju dici al proceedi ng s. 2 3 F .3 d 7 72 (3d C ir . 199 4). W e began
o u r stan d in g an aly sis b y

ex p lain in g : Art. II I r equire s the party

wh o invo kes the court’ sN o par t y i nvol ved i n t he appe al addre s s ed t he i s s ue of 10 FO C U S’ s s t andi ng. 26 authority to show that

he pers on al ly

has s uf fered s om e a c t ua l or thr e a t e ne d i njury

a s ar e s ul t

of the put a t i ve l y

i l l e ga l c onduc t

of the de fe ndant , and tha t the i njury

fa i r l y c an be tr a c e d t o the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on and i s l i ke l y t o be r e dr e s s e d by afa vor abl e de c i s i on. I d. a t 777 ( quot i ng Va lleyFo rge Chris ti an Co ll . v. Am. Un ited for Separation o

f Chu rc h a nd

State, Inc. , 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1 9 8 2 ) (citatio n an din tern al q u o tatio n s o m itted )). I n FOCUS v

. Al l e

ghe nyCount

yCour t o f C o mmon Pl e as , we considere d w hether a cit iz en’s advo ca cy grou p (“FOC US ”) had stan d in g “to p re se nt . . . fre e s peec h chall enges t o the gag
or de r s ” th at h a d be e n e nt e r e d by as t a t e tr i a l c ourt
. 75 F. 3d 10 8 3 4 , 8 3 8 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). We n o tedth at: The party i nvoki ng fe de r a l jur i s di c t i on be ar s the bur de n of e s t abl i s h in g the e l e m e nt s of s t andi ng, an de a c h e l e me n t mu s t b e s up p o rt e di n th e s a me way a s any ot her m a t t e r

on wh i c h the pl a i nt i ff27 bear s the bu rden of proo f, i. e. , with the m anner and de gr e e of e vi de nc e r e qui r e d a t the s uc c e s s i ve s t a ge s of the l i t i ga t i on. Id . ( ci tati on s and inte rnal qu otat ions om itte d). Que s t i o n s of s t andi ng ar os e i n FOCUS beca use gag orders had c on stra ined the attorney s and parti es in o ther li ti gati on from

disc losi ng info rmat io n to F OC US that was pert inent t o the gr o u p’s m is si on . FOC US ar gu ed that the gag orders ente re d in the other l it igat ion p re vented a wil li ng speaker fr om di s c l os i ng i nform a t i on t o i t , e ve n though the or de r s di d not

“ c on s tr a i n [F OC US ’ s ] s pe e c h i n any way [, ]” andthat

FO CU S th eref o re h adstan d in g . Id
. W e a gr e e d th at th e i m pa c t of the
or de r s on FOCUS c oul d be s uffi c i e nt t o gi ve FOCUS s t andi ng t o c ha l l e ng e the pr ot e c ti ve or de r s . W e e xp l a i ne d that “ ‘ [w ]e h av e ro u tin ely

f o u n d , . . . th at th i rdp arties h av e stan d in g to chal le ng e prote ct ive order s an d con fidentia li ty orders in an effo rt to ob ta in ac ce ss to info rm at ion o r jud ic ia l proce edings.’ ”28 Id
. ( quot i ng P a n sy , 23 F. 3d a t 777)
. Howe ve r , we a l s o not e d: [Tha t ] put a t i ve r e c i pi e nt s of s pe e c h us ua l l y ha ve s t andi ng t o c ha l l e nge or de r s s i l e nc i ng woul d- be s pe a ke r s do e s no t

ne c e s s ar i l y

m e an that

[F OC US has] st anding
. . . . [FO CU S] m ust s ti ll show that the gag orders have c ause d th em inju ry in fact an dth a t th e i r i n j u ry i s l i k e l y t o b e r e d r e s s e db y a fa vor abl e de c i s i on. . . . Ac c or di ngl y , c ourt s ha ve found tha t thi r d part i e s ha v e s t a

ndi ng t o c ha l l e nge ag ag or de r

onl y whe n the r e i s r e a s on t o be l i e ve th at th e in d iv idu al sub

j ect t o t h e g ag o rd er is wi l l i ng t o s pe a k an d i s be i ng r e s tr a i ne d fr om doi ng s o. Id . at 8 3 8 -3 9 (citatio n s o m itted ). C o n sist e n t w i t h th e last
se ntence re ci te d abo ve, we wrote:

Lo ok ing at the al le ga ti on s i n the veri fied c om pl a i nt i n the l i ght m os t fa vor abl e t o [FOCUS] he r e , the r e ar e r e a s ons t o c onc l ude tha t [FOCUS] has a dequ at el y m et a “will ingn es s of the speaker” r e qui r e m e nt

for s t andi ng a t

thi s st a ge of the litig atio n . A s w e h av e n o ted , w h ile n eith er p arty t o the [othe r

l i t i ga t i on] i s on r eco rd a s be i ng o p p o sedto th e g a g o rd ers, th e [ f o ster p aren ts invo lved in the other

li ti gati on ] at l ea st

were wi l l i ng t o t a l k a t

s om e poi nt

pr i or t o the e ntry

of the ga g or de r s : The c om pl a i nt alle ge s tha t

the [fos t e r par e nt s ] “ r e c e nt l y r e l e a s e d abook29 deta il ing their

experi ence s with [a chil d they were tryin g t o a d o p t] an dth eir f ru stratio n w ith [ A lleg h en y

C o u n ty C h ildr e n a

ndY o u th S erv ices] and the courts .” Mo re ov er , the com plai nt fu rther a l l e ge s tha t

the judge “ ha s thr e a t e ne d t o r e m ove [the c hi l d] fr om the [fos t e r par e nt s ’ ] hom e i f [the f o ster p aren ts] ap p ear to p ub licly p ro m o te th eir b o o ko r o t h e r w ise d iscu ss th eir case.” It is r e a s onabl e t o i nfe r fr om the s e a l l e ga t i ons tha t the [f os t e r pa r e nt s ] a r e wil li ng bu t r es tr ai ned speakers who da r e not

c ha l l e nge the ga g or de r s for fe ar of rep risal f ro m th e j u d g e. A t th is s tag e, w e m u st accep t th ese alleg atio n s an dth is p erm issib le in f eren ce in [ F O C U S ’s] f

av o r. In su m , w e f

in dth at [ F O C U S ] h as alleg edf acts i n [i t s ] ve r i fi e d c omp l a i nt whi c h woul d be suff ic ie nt to survive a

m otion to d is m is s for la ck of s t andi ng. Id . at 8 3 9
. We also d iscu ss e d t h e “ w i l l i n g s p e a k e r ” d o ctrin e in Uni t e d Stat es v . W

e c ht , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 9 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e case in v o lv edD r . C y

ril Wech t, a w ell-k n o w n f o ren sic p ath o lo g ist, who ha d be e n i ndi c t e d for the ft of hone s t s e rvi c e s , m a i l fr aud, wire fraud, and theft from an o rganiz at ion re ce iving f eder al30 f u n d s. A f

ter th e in d ictm en t, th e g o v er n me n t an dd ef en se
c ouns e l a gr e e d to a g ag or de r pur s uant t o al oc a l r

ul e of the Uni t e d St a t e s Di s tr i c t

Court for the W e s t e rn Distr i c t

of P en n sylv an ia w h ich lim itedth e ex ten t to w h ich atto rn ey s co u ld
comm ent on a ca se . Abo ut two m on ths after the g ag order was
e nt e r e d, the gove rnm en t not i fi e d the di s tr i c t c ourt about statem en ts th at Wech t’s atto rn ey s h adm ad e to th e p ress. At s om e poi nt , two ne ws pa pe r s an d two TV s t a t i ons
succ es sf u ll y m ov ed to inte rvene and then chall enged the gag order und er

the wil li ng speak er do ctri ne. They ar gu ed that si nce defense c ou nsel wanted to speak abo ut the c as e, the gag
or de r pl ac e d an i m

pr ope r r e s tr i c t i on on the i r

a c c e s s t o the attorney s’ st at em ents
. Th e m edia ou tl et s cla im ed this im prop er
r e s tr i c t i on ga ve r i s e t o the i r thi r d- party s t andi ng t o c ha l l e nge the
c ons t i t ut i ona l i ty of the l oc a l r

ul e a l l owi ng s uc h ga g or de r s , and, th eref o re, th ey co u ldb rin g claim s f

o r d isclo su re u n d er th e F irst31 A m en d m en t o n b eh alf

o f th e p ub lic. W

e c ht , 4 8 4 F .3 dat 2 0 2
. T h e g o v e rn m e n t

c o n t e n d e dth a t

th e d e f e n s e a t t o rn e ys could n ot be wi ll in g speakers beca use they agre ed to the gag
or de r . The gove rnm e nt

ar gue d tha t

de fe ns e c ouns e l ’ s c ons e nt t o the ga g or de r s pr e c l ude d the m e di a out l e t s fr om e s t abl i s hi ng thi r d- party

s t andi ng. W e be gan our

di s c us s i on of thi r d party standi ng by
r e c a l l i ng our

ana l y s i s i n FO CU

S : W e not e d [i n FOCUS] tha t “ put a t i ve r e c i pi e nt s of spee ch usuall y

have st anding to chal le ng e orders s i l e nc i ng wo ul d- be s pe a ke r s , ” bu t that “ pl a i nt i ff s st il l m ust s ho w th at th e gag orders have c ause d th em in j u ry in f act an dth at th eir in

j u ry is lik ely to be re dres se d by

a favorable dec is ion.” [ Foc us , 75 F.3d ] at 838 . Acc ording ly , w e held that “third part i e s have s t and i ng t o c ha l l e ng e aga g o rder onl y whe n the r e i s r e a s on to be l i e ve tha t the in d iv idu al sub

j ect to th e g a g o rd er is w illin g to sp eakan di s b ein g restrain edf ro m d o in g so .” [ Foc us , 75 F. 3d] a t

838- 39. W e c ht , 484 F.3 d at 20 2. We re ject ed the gov er

nm ent’ s32 ar gu m ent that defense c ou nsel ’s consent to the gag order
ne ga t e d thi r d party

s t andi ng be c aus e tha t ar gum e nt “m is constr

ue[d ] th e purpo se of

the ‘ will ing speaker ’ r

ule a s well as the r equire m ents fo r s tand ing.” Id
. W e e xpl a i ne d: The pu r

po s e of the “ wi l l i ng s pe a ke r” re qu ir em ent, ther efore, i s not to ti e the thir d p arty ’s in terest s t o th o se o f th e sp eak er, b u t to e ns ur e tha t the r e i s an i njury i n fa c t tha t woul d be red ressedb y

a f a v o rab le d ecisio n . H ere, it is u n d isp u tedth at Wech t’s atto rn ey s are w illin g to sp eak a b o u t th e case an dth at [ th e lo cal ru le pur s uant t o which the ga g or de r wa s e nt e r e d] li m it s their

abil it y to do so. To the exte nt that an o ccasio n arises in th e f u tu re w h er e d e f

en se c ouns e l de s i r e s t o m a ke publ i c s t a t e m e nt s about th e case, w e b eliev e th e m ed ia an dth e p ub lic ha ve al e gi t i m a t e i nt e r e s t i n thos e c omm e nt s not b ein g in h ib itedb y

o v erly restrictiv e lim itatio n s. Ac c or di ngl y , we hol d tha t the co n sent

of the p arties to th e o rd er lim itin g sp eech is irrelev an t to thir d-party

st anding analy si s as l on g as the thir d party can d em on strate that

an individu al subj ec t to the order wo uld s peak m ore freel y if the order i s l i ft e d or

m odi fi e d.
. . . The m e di aout l e t s ha ve satisf ied th is req u irem en t an d h av e stan d i n g to c ha l l e ng e the c on s t i t

ut i on a l i ty of the [l oc a l r

ul e ].33 Id . at 2 0 2 -0 3
. Base d o n these ca se s, the NRT W c on te nd s that i t has thir d p arty

st anding to se ek m od ific at ion o f the protec ti ve order
and obt a i n a c c e s s t o the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds beca use Pichle r

c l a s s c ou ns e l wo ul d p r ov i de the Di s pu t ed Se ar c h Re c or ds abs e nt

the pr ot e c t i ve or de r . Howe ve r , the NR TW m is in terpre ts the par am et er s of the will ing speaker do ctri ne as well as the obsta cl es to disc losure of the Dis pu te d S earch R eco rd s. Pichle r cl as s coun se l cann ot ac cura te ly be chara ct er iz ed
a s wi l l i ng t o pr ovi de the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds but for the pr ot e c t i ve or de r . I n r e s pons e t o the NRT W’s Jul y 30, 2007 letter req u estin g d isclo su re, Pichle r cl as s c ou nsel wrote: We an do u r clien ts h a v e n o o b j ectio n to pr ovi di ng y o u wi th thi s i nform a t i on, a t y our ex p en se, provided

tha t we ar e a s s ur e d tha t

doi ng s o wi l l not

vi ol a t e any

obl i g ations we m ay

ha ve to m ai ntai n the conf identi al it y

of thatI n addi t i on, t he cha l l enges i n F O C U S and W echt w ere 11 p r e mi s e d o n v i o l a t i o n s o f F i r s t Am e n d me n t r i g h t s . F OC US al l ege d t ha t t he ga g o r de r vi ol a t e d i t s Fi r s t A mend ment r i gh t s, and t he medi a out l et s i n W echt a s s e r t e d F i r s t Ame n d me n t c l a i ms on behal f of t he publ i c. O bvi ous l y , t he N R T W cannot m ake a Fi r s t A m endment chal l enge t o t he pr ot ect i ve or der her e. 34 info rm at ion, wh ether pursuant to the Cou rt ’s p ro tectiv e o rd er o r u n d er t h e D P P A . In th is r e g ar dw e w o u l da c c e p t

y o u r p r o p o s a l th a t

y ou i nt e rve ne i n thi s c a s e t o s e e k an or de r pe rm i t t i ng ou r d is cl osure of this i nf orm at ion to y ou . W e woul d c ons e nt

t o y our m ot i on t o i nt e r

vene , but no t t ake a po si ti on as to the m er it s of y ou r e ff ort t o obt a i n the i nform a t i on. (J . App . 115 (e m

ph as is in original ). ) T h u s, Pichle r c l a s s c ouns e l ar e not i n the s a m e pos i t i on as th e f o ster p aren ts in FOCUS or de fe ns e c ouns e l i n W e c ht , all of wh om were will ing to speak, but si le nced sole ly by gag
or de r s . Th e pr ot e c t i ve or de r i s no t the on l y r e a s on the NR TW 11 is prevente d f

rom ac ce ss ing the Disputed Sear ch Records here , and NRTW ’ s c l a i m

t o the c on tr ary

i s ju s t pl a i n w r on g. Ev en35 ab sen t th e p ro tectiv e o rd er, d isclo su re still can n o t b e allo w edif it w o u ldv io late th e p ro h ib itio n s a n dp ro tectio n s C o n g ress estab lish edu n d er th e D P P A
. Th e NRT W argues that i t c an ob ta in the Dis pu te d S earc h Re c or ds un de r

the DP PA ’ s “ l i t i gat i on e xc e pt ion. ” As p rev io u sly

n o ted , th at ex cep tio n allo w s d isclo su re o f o th erw ise p ro tectedreco rd s: F o r u se in co n n ect i o n w ith an y civ il, crim in al, a dm i ni s tr a t i ve , or

ar bi tr a l pr oc e e di ng i n any Federa l, Stat e, or loca l court or agency or befo re any s e l f- r e gul a t ory

body , i nc l udi ng the s e rvi c e of pr oc e s s , i nve s t i ga t i o ni na nt i c i pa t i on of l i t i ga t i on, an dth e ex ecu ti o n o r en f o rcem en t o f

j u d g m en ts an do rd ers, o r p u rsu an t t o an o rd er o f a F ed eral, S tate, o r lo cal co u rt.
1 8 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 1 (b )(4 ). T h e N R T W m ak es th ree arg u m en ts in sup p o rt of it s c on te ntion. Firs t, it cl ai m s that the Disputed Sear ch Records w il l b e use d “pu rs uant to an order of a Federal

. . . c ou rt ” bec ause it

is re qu es ti ng that a federal court e nter an36 or de r tha t pe rm i t s i t t o us e the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds t o s e nd
no ti ce s to the vict im s of U NITE ’s m otor vehicl e r ec ord
se ar ches . Sec on d, NR TW contends that it s use of the Dis pu te d S earch R eco rd s w ill b e “ in co n n ectio n w ith an y civ il . . . pr oc e e di ng i n any Fe de r a l
. . . c ourt ” be c aus e us i ng e vi de nc e of the wr ongdoi ng i n Pichle r t o i n f o rm s i mi l ar l y s i t

u a t e dv i c t i ms is an ac ti on “i n con nect ion w it h” the Pichle r class actio n ag ain st UN ITE. Th ir d, it

contends that it s u se of the Dis pu te d S earc h Re c or ds wi l l be pur s uant

t o an “ i nve s t i ga t i on i n ant i c i pa t i on of litig atio n ” b ecau se it in ten d s to p ro v id e f ree leg al aidto
em ploy ee s who con tact

it up on le ar

ning that UN ITE v iolate d the i r DPPA r i ght s . W e ar e not pe r s ua de d by

any of the se arg u m en ts. W he n we de c i de d P ich ler V , we a gree d w it

h the distri ct
c ourt ’ s c onc l us i on tha t

the l i t i ga t i on e xc e pt i on di d not e xt e nd to UN ITE’s tagging op er at ion. In re ject ing U NITE ’s contrary37 pos i t i on the r e , the di s tr i c t c ourt e xpl a i ne d: [T]he exc e pt i on a

ppl i e s onl y

i f ade fe ndant

obt a i ns pr ot e c t e d i nf

or m a t i on fo r a perm i t t e d “ us e . ” As we co n stru e th e term , “us e ” i mpl i es a r e as onabl e l i k e l i hood t hat t he de c i s i on mak e r woul d f i nd t he i nf o rm a t i on us e f ul i n t he c our s e of t he pr oc e e di ng. P ich ler I , 339 F. Su pp . 2d at 668 (e m ph as is added). We agre ed wi th the di s tr i c t

c ourt tha t the l i t i ga t i on e xc e pt i on of the DPPA
re qu ir es som ething m ore t h an m er el y using the protec te d
re cords t o id en ti fy

po te ntia l l it igants . The two exam ples that the di s trict

c ourt us e d i n e xpl a i ni ng the l i m i t a t i on of the
ex cep tio n s UN IT E reliedup o n illu strate th e p o in t: [I ]f the Uni o n s cla i m e d be for e the [Na t i ona l Labor R el a t i ons ] Boar d tha t

Ci nt a s s om e how r i gge d a certif icatio n electio n so th at th e resu lts d idn o t accu rately r e fl e c t the num be r of e m pl oy e e s who wa nt e d uni on re pres entati on , they wo uld nee d t o i dentify w h ic h e m pl oy e e s a c t

ua l l y de s i r e d s uc h r ep resen tation. O b tain i n g p erso n al in f

o rm atio n ab o u t em

p lo y ees to contac t t hem re gard in g h ow they

vo te d w ou ld be a pe rm i s s i bl e “ us e ” be c aus e i t i s r e a s onabl y

l i ke l y tha t the Bo ar d w ou ld need to kn ow wh ic h e m ploy ee s s up po rt ed uni oni z a t i on. On the othe r hand, the l i t i ga t i on e xc e pt i on38 woul d not

a ppl y i f the Uni ons ar gue d be for e the NLRB tha t Ci nt a s e nga ge d i n an unfa i r l abor pr a c t i c e by

hi r i ng se curi ty gu ar ds to keep them from re cording emp loy ee licen se p late n u m

b ers b ecau se it is n o t reaso n ab ly lik ely tha t the Boar d woul d r e qui r e a ny i nform a t i on about whi c h e m pl oy e e s parke d i n apart i c ul ar l ot t o r e s ol ve the is sue. Id

. Jus t

a s the l i t i ga t i o n e xc e pt i on pr ot e c t e d the r e c or ds of C IN T A S em

p lo y ees w h o m ig h t h av e b een in terestedin pu rs uing l e ga l or

a dm i ni s t r at ive r em edie s a gainst

thei r e m ploy er fr om UNIT E ’s t a ggi ng ope r a t i on, i t a l s o pr ot e c t s the 12, 000 pe r s ons whos e r e c or ds c om pr i s e the Di s put e d Se ar c h Re c or ds fr om the NRTW ’ s e ffort s to i de nt i fy pe r s ons who m i ght

be in terestedin p u rsu in g leg al rem ed ies ag ain st UN IT E
. The r e c or ds the NRTWi s s e e ki ng wi l l not a dvanc e the i n q u i ry o f an y d e c i s i o n ma k e r

c h ar g e dw i th d e c i d i n g an y c l a i ms
un der the DP PA that

m ay ar is e from disc losure to the NRT W. The i nform a t i on the NRTW wa nt s t o obt a i n woul d do nothi ng39 m ore than identify

po te ntia l l it igants and cla im ants wh o m ay wi s h t o p ur s ue r e m e di e s fo r UN I TE’s vi ol a t i on of

the DP PA
. Th a t i s no t e no ug h t o c om

pr om i s e the pr i va c y

a ff orded
m o to rists b y

th e D P P A . In f

act, The l e a s t s y m pa the t i c c a s e for

di s c ove ry

s har i ng i s pr e s e nt e d by a req u est f

o r access o n b e h a l f

o f so m eo n e w h o is m erely c onte mpla t i ng the c om

m e nc e m e nt

of l i t i gat i on . Th e r i s k o f a f ish in g ex p ed itio n o r so m e o th er f o rm o f m isch ief is g reatest in this context. Th e s afes t c ou rs e s ee m s t o b e denia l of d is covery sh arin g u n til th e req u estin g p arty actu ally h as b eg u n a law su it, unl e s s he de m ons tr a t e s e xtr a or di nary ne e d.
A rth u r R . M iller, Conf

id en tia lity, P ro tective O rd

ers, a n d P u b lic A ccess to th e Co u rts , 105 Harv. L. Rev. 427 , 499 (199 1). UNI TE’ s us e of the i n f o rm a t i on obt a i ne d thr ough ta gg ing w as im

perm i s s i bl e be c a

use i t am ou nted to no thing m ore t ha n di s c o v e ry

o f p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f

f s . W e s e e n o d i s t i n c t i on be twe e n UNI TE’ s i m

pe rm i s s i bl e pur

pos e , and the pur

pos e for
w h ich th e N R T W is seek in g th e in f o rm atio n .40 W e r e a l i ze th at

the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s ana l y s i s i n P ich ler I t urne d i n p art

upon the “ t e nuous c onne c t i on be twe e n the p ro tec t e d i nform a t i on and i s s ue s t ange nt i a l l y r e l a t e d t o a
co ncei vable l it igat ion str at egy ,” P ich ler I , 33 9 F. Supp . 2d at 6 6 8 , an d t h a t i tis f

ar m o re lik ely

th at litig atio n co u ldresu lt fr om di s c l os ur e he r e be c aus e the r e i s l i t t l e doubt tha t e a c h of the p e r s o n s w h o s e r e c o r d s w e r e a c c e s s e d h a s a c au s e of a c t i on
un der the DP PA
. Ho wever, that is no t dete rm inat ive. Rather , a s the di s tr i c t c ourt e xpl a i ne d, the a ppl i c abl e e xc e pt i ons t o the p ro tectio n s o f

th e D P P A tu rn o n w h eth er th ere is a “reaso n ab le li keli ho od ” that the disputed re cords wou ld as sist the fac t f in d er’s reso lu tio n o f

th e d isp u te b ef

o re it. As the di s tr ict

c ourt e xpl a i ne d i n Pichle r I

II , “ [t ]he D P P A . . . d o es n o t p erm it o n e to ac q u i r e an du se statu to rily pr os c r i be d pe r s ona l i nform a t i on t o s ol i c i t or fi nd c l a i m s . ” 446 F. Su pp . 2d at 370 . The dist ri ct court bel ie ved that “ UN ITE’s41 a c t i ons a m ount e d t o . . . tr ol l i ng [tha t wa s ] fa r s hort of the
concre te ness Co ng re ss had in m ind to rem ov e the DP PA ’s protec ti on .” Id
. T h e N R T W’s tro llin g is alm o st certain to resu lt i n am uc h r i c he r

c a t c h th an U NI TE’ s be c aus e the wa t e r s the NR TW i s tr ol l i ng have be e n s t oc ke d w i th 1 2, 00 0 p ot e nt i al pl a i nt i ffs
. The wa t e r s UNI TE wa s tr ol l i ng ha d fa r fe we r fi s h,
and the r e wa s no c e rt a i nty of fi nd i ng any c l a i m ant s or pl a i nt i ff s at all. H o w ev er, th at q u an titativ e d istin ctio n d o es n o t resu lt in a quali tati ve diff

er ence . I n Pich le r v . UNI TE a r gue d tha t Congr e s s c oul d not h av e in ten d ed to p u n ish tag g in g u n d er th e D P P A b ecau se Congr e s s ha d e na c t e d l e gi s l a t i on t o pr ot e c t l abor or gani z i ng. Th us, a cc ording to UN ITE, Co ng re ss could no t have i ntended t o pr ohi bi t a di s c l os ur e tha t a dvanc e s l abor r i ght s c onfe rr e d by Congr e s s . W e r e

je c t e d tha t

ar gum e nt . W e now r e

je c t the N R T W’s attem

p t to arg u e th at s i n c e C o n g ress created a cau se42 o f actio n f

o r th e im p ro p er d isclo su re o f

m o to r v eh icle reco rd s, it could no t h ave intended to proh ibit disc losure to advance that
cau se o f actio n . N o n e o f

th e D isp u tedS earch R eco rd s co u ld
a dva nc e the a djudi c a t i on of pe ndi ng or futur e litiga t i on. The N R T W i s n o t

s e e k i n g t o o b t a i n i n f

o rm a t i o n f

o r u s e i n the Pichle r c l a s s acti on; on the c ontr ary , a s UNI TE not e s , the NR TW is se eking i nf

orm at ion a

bo ut peop le wh o are n o t e v en
m em bers of the Pichle r

class. Si nc e the propos e d us e for whi c h the NRTWs e e ks the Di s pu t e d Se ar c h Re c or ds i s no t pe rm i s s i bl e un de r the DP PA , P ich ler class co u n sel can n o t b e d eem eda “w illin g sp eak er.” Accordingly , the court a ct ion canno t r edre ss the NRT W’ s assertedin

j u ry . T h e N R T W th eref o re lack s stan d in g to chal le ng e the protec ti ve order.

I I I . Conc l us i on . Fo r the abov e r ea sons, we wil l a ff ir m the dis tr ic t c ou rt ’s43 or de r de nyi ng the NRTW ’ s m ot i on t o m odif y the pr ot e c t i ve
or de r a nd i t s o rd er d e nyi ng the NRTW ’ s m ot i on for
r e c ons i de r a t i on.