2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-10-2006 

# Reyes v . Freeb e rry P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3400

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Reye s v . F r e ebe rry " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 770. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/770NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3400 JA C K R E Y E S , S e rg e a n t; JO S E A N T O N IO H E R N A N D E Z , S e rg e a n t, A p p e llan ts v. S H E R R Y F R E E B E R Y , JO H N L . C U N N IN G H A M , C o lo n e l, bo th i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n th e i ro f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; N E W C A ST L E C O U N T Y , a muni ci pal corpor at i on O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 01283 ( H onor abl e K entJ or dan) A r gued M ay24, 2005 D i s m i s s ed I n Par tand R emanded t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforC l ar i fi cat i on J ul y8, 2005 R es ubm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) Fol l ow i ng R emand M ar ch 16, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed J ul y10, 2006)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . T hi s i s an appe al of thr ee or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tar i s i ng fr om a pr e- tr i al d isc o v e ryp ro tec tiv e o rd e r e n ter e d o n th e jo in t re q u e st o f th e p a rties . W e w ill d ism iss in p a rt a n d re m a n d in p a rt. I. O n J ul y10, 2002, Ser geant s J ack Rey es and J os e A nt oni o H ernandez fi l ed a compl ai nti n t he D i s tr i ctC our tagai ns tSherryFr eebe ry , i ndi vi dual l yand i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyas C hi ef A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi cerof N ew C as t l e C ounty ; C ol onel J ohn C u n n in g h a m , in h is in d iv id u a l ca p a c ity ; C o lo n e l D a v id M c A lli ste r, in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity as C hi ef of

the N ew C as t l e C ount yPol i ce D epart m ent ; and N ew C as t l e C ounty . Pl ai nt i ffs al l eged, among ot herthi ngs , di s cr i m i nat orypr om ot i on pr act i ces , r et al i at i on, and c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e . T o f a c ili tate d isc o v e ry , the p a rties n e g o tiate d a c o n f id e n tiality agr eement . O n J anuary22, 2003, the part i es fi l ed a j oi ntm ot i on fora pr ot ect i ve or der a d o p tin g th e c o n f

id e n tia lity a g re e m e n t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n te d th e m o tio n . B o th p a rties f

iled m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n to enfor ce c om pl i ance w i th t he pr ot ect i ve or der . T heyal l eged pl ai nt i ffs vi ol at ed the pr ot ect i ve or derbyfai l i ng t o fi l e thei rs um m aryj udgm entpl eadi ngs unders eal and by c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith th e p re s s re g a rd in g c o n f id e n tia l m a tte rs .D ur i ng the t el econf er ence , the D i s tr i ctJ udge expl ai ned: 1 I ’ m veryi nt er es t ed i n m ai nt ai ni ng the pr es s ’ ful l and ade quat e ac ces s t o the court s and the pr ocee di ngs i n the court s , butw hen w e’ r e t al ki ng about confi dent i al i nform at i on oral l egat i ons thatconfi dent i al i nform at i on has been w r ongl ydi s s emi nat ed, I thi nk y ou w i l l onl ycompound t he pr obl em by di s cus s i ng thi s m att erunt i l w e’ ve ai r ed i tand di s cover ed w hetherornot th e re ’s s u b s ta n c e to th e a lle g a tio n s th a t a re m a d e . (A p p . 4 5 .) 3 O n Ja n u a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istric t Ju d g e h e ld a h e a rin g v ia te lec o n f e re n c e . W ith the cons entof both part i es , he or der ed the s um m aryj udgm entpl eadi ngs s eal ed pendi ng hi s r evi ew of def

endant s ’ m ot i on. H e al s o r es tr i ct ed the part i es ’ comm uni cat i ons w i th t he p re ss . P lain tiff

s c o n ten d h is in stru c tio n c o n stitu ted a b lan k e t g a g o rd e r o n a ll 1 c o m m u n ica tio n s re latin g to th e c a se . D e f e n d a n ts c o n ten d th e re stric tio n w a s lim ited to c o m m u n ic a tio n s th a t w o u ld v io la te th e p ro te c tiv e o rd e r. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a mot i on t o voi d the conf i dent i al i tyagr eementand the pr ot ect i ve o rde r, an d to m ak e the rec o rd p u b li c. W h il e this m o ti o n w as p en d ing , d ef en d an t Sh erry Fr eebe ryw as i ndi ct ed on unr el at ed fe der al char ges . O n J ul y30, 2004, the D i s tr i ctJ udge iss u e d a n o rd e r sta y in g a ll p ro c e e d in g s. In a f o o tn o te, th e o rd e r e x p licitlyd e c lin e d to ad d ress P lai n ti ff

s’ arg u m en t th at i n restri cti n g co m m u n icati o n s w ith the p ress, th e c o u rt had pl ace d an uncons t i tut i onal pr i orr es tr ai nton hi s expr es s i on. O n A ugus t20, 2004, t he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce a l l pendi ng m ot i ons . Pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed, cont endi ng the D i s tr i ctJ udge err ed i n ( 1) s t ay i ng the ci vi l cas e, ( 2) r efus i ng t o voi d the4

pr ot ect i ve or der , ( 3) deny i ng the mot i on t o uns eal the s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d, and ( 4) re s tr ic tin g c o u n s e l’ s c o m m u n ic a tio n s w ith th e p re s s . In a p e r c u ria m o p in io n f iled Ju ly8 , 2 0 0 5 , w e h e ld th a t w e lac k e d ju risd ictio n to r e v i e w th e s t a yo r d e ra n d th a twe c o u l d n o td e t e r mi n e , b a s e d o n th e r e c o r d , wh e th e rwe had j ur i s di ct i on overpl ai nt i ffs ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s . W e r emanded forfur ther cl ar i fi cat i on of the r es tr i ct i ons on di s coveryi nform at i on, courtr ecor ds , and comm uni cat i ons w i th t he pr es s . O n D ece m ber29, 2005, the D i s tr i ctJ udge i s s ued a me mo r a n d u m o p i n i o n e x p l a i n i n g th e s c o p e o f a n d r e a s o n s f

o rth e r e s tr i c t i o n s . He emphasi zed the pr ot ect i ve or derw as ent er ed on the j oi ntm ot i on of the part i es , and the s e a lin g o rd e r a n d p re s s e n f o rc e m e n t o rd e r w e re e n te re d to e n f o rc e th e p ro te c tiv e o rd e r. A t ou r req u est, the p arti es f il ed let ter briefs in resp o n se to the D istri ct Ju d g e’s m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th, w e conc l ude w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the A ugus t20, 2004 or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o voi d the pr ot ect i ve or der , orthe J anuary15, 2 0 0 4 o ra l o rd e r n o t to c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e p re s s re g a rd in g c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a tio n . W e conc l ude w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the A ugus t20, 2004 or derdeny i ng the m ot i on t o uns eal the s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d, and w e w i l l r emand forthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s fur thercons i der at i on.Pl ai nt i ffs al s o cont end w e ca n r evi ew the pr ot ect i ve or derunderthe doctr i ne of 2 pen den tj uri sdi ct i on . W e hav e st at ed “‘pen den tapp el l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov er an ot herw i se unappea l abl e or deri s avai l abl e onl yt o the ext entnece s s aryt o ens ur e meani ngful r evi ew of an a ppeal abl e or der . ’ ” In re Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 215 F. 3d 367, 376 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Nat ’ lUni o n Fi r e I n s . v . Ci t y Sa v . , F. S . B. , 2 8 F .3 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) . H er e, ther e i s over l ap betw een the fi r s tor der , deny i ng the mot i on t o vaca t e the pr ot ect i ve or der , and the s econd or der , t empora r i l ys eal i ng the s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d. B utt he seal i ng order w as based o n the D i stri ctJudg e’s need for t i m e t o co nsi der the p art i es’ (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 II. A. U nderthe fi nal j udgm entrul e, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew al l fi nal deci s i ons of th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . See 28 U . S. C . § 1291. U nderthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne, w e ca n re v iew a n o th e rw ise in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l if th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r (1 ) c o n c lu siv e ly d e ter m in e s th e d isp u ted q u e stio n , (2 ) re so lv e s a n im p o rta n t q u e stio n th a t is u n re late d to the mer i t s of the under l y i ng cas e, and ( 3) w oul d eff ect i vel ybe unr evi ew abl e on appe al f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t. S e e C a r rv . A m . R e d C r o s s , 17 F. 3d 671, 675 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng C oopers & Lybr and v. Li ves ay , 437 U . S. 463, 468 ( 1978) ) . W e have cons trued the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne narr ow l y , “‘ l es tthe exc ept i on s w al l ow up the s al ut arygener al rul e’ thatonl yfi nal or der s m aybe appe al ed. ” Y a ko w ic zv . P e n n s

y lv a n ia , 683 F. 2d 778, 783 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( quot i ng R od gers v. U. S. Steel

C orp . , 5 4 1 F . 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 )). Pl ai nt i ffs cont end w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the A ugus t20, 2004 or der d e n y i n g th e m o t i o n t o v o i d th e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e ru n d e rth e c o l l a t e r a l o r d e rd o c tr i n e . We 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 pos i t i ons , and noton an eva l uat i on of the pr ot ect i ve or der ’ s val i di ty . W e nee d notr evi ew the pr ot ect i ve or dert o r evi ew the dec i s i on t o s eal the r ecor d. T he thi r d or der , r es tr i ct i ng c o m m u n ica tio n s w ith th e p re ss th a t v io late d th e p ro tec tiv e o rd e r, is n o t su f f icie n tly r el at ed t o the s eal i ng or dert o w arr antpendentj ur i s di ct i on. Fur therm or e, w e thi nk i ti s unl i kel ythatthe or dercoul d s at i s fythe s econd 3 r equi r ementof the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne, underw hi ch an or derm us tr es ol ve an im p o rt a n t is s u e u n re la te d to th e m e ri ts o f th e u n d e rl y in g c a s e . See Carrv. A m . R ed C r o s s , 17 F. 3d 671, 675 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . Pl ai nt i ffs cont end the pr ot ect i ve or deri m pl i cat es F irst A m e n d m e n t issu e s th a t ar e b o th im p o rta n t an d in d e p e n d e n t f ro m th e m e rits. B u t a pr ot ect i ve or deronl yi m pl i cat es the Fi r s tA m endmenti f i ti s nots uppor t ed bya s how i ng of “good c aus e. ” See S eatt l e T i m es C o. v. R hinehart , 467 U . S. 20, 37 ( 1982) . W e ca nnot det erm i ne w hetherthe pr ot ect i ve or deri s s uppor t ed bygood caus e— and w hether pl ai nt i ffs r ai s e a Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m — w i thoutr evi ew i ng the mer i t s of the under l y i ng cas e. I n C ip o llo n e , w e not ed thatbeca us e of a m bi guous l anguage i n Seat t l e Ti m es , i tw as un cl ear i f t he C ou rthad m and at ed a R ule 26(c) analy si s w i tho ut r egard t o the Fir st (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 di s agr ee. U nderthe doctr i ne’ s fi r s tr equi r ement , the or derm us tconcl us i vel ydet erm i ne th e d is p u te d q u e s tio n . S e e C a r r, 17 F. 3d at675. H er e, the or derdeni ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on w ith o u t p re

ju d ice , an d sta ted “ [ a ]n yp a rtym a yre n e w th e ir m o tio n s w h e n th e sta yis l i ft ed. ” ( A pp. 62. ) W e have not ed, “[s ] o l ong as ther e i s a pl ai n pr os pectthatthe tr i al c o u rt m a yitse lf

a lter th e c h a llen g e d ru lin g , the re is litt le ju stif ica tio n f o r im m e d iate appel l at e i ntrus i on. ” Lusar div. X er ox C or p. , 747 F. 2d 174, 178 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( ci t i ng 15 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, F e d e ra l P ra c tic e & P ro c e d u re , § 3 9 1 1 (1 9 7 6 )) . A ccor di ngl y , the or derdoes nots at i s fythe fi r s tr equi r ementof the col l at er al or der doctr i ne. B eca us e w e ca nnotexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overa col l at er al or derunl es s al l thr ee re q u ir e m e n ts o f

th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e a re s a tis f ie d , s e e C a r r, 1 7 F . 3 d a t6 7 5 , we w i l l di s m i s s forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 A m e n d m e n t, o r i f

th e a n a lysis s h o u ld in c lu d e a le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s te s t. C i pol l one v. Ligget tG r oup, I

nc. , 785 F. 2d 1108, 1119 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . B utw e conc l uded “ S e a ttl e Ti m es prohibi t s a courtcon si deri ng a prot ect i ve o rderfrom con cerni ng i t sel f w i th fir st amendm entcons i der at i ons . ” I d. A c c o rd in g ly , in c a se s a d d re ss in g o u r ju risd ictio n to revi ew i nter l ocu t oryapp eal s of dis cov eryprot ect i ve o rder s, w e hav e con cl ud ed F i rs t A m e n d m e n t c o n c e rn s a re n o t p ro p e rl yc o n s id e re d . S e e id .; N e w Y o rk v . U .S. Me ta ls R ef i ni ng C o. , 7 7 1 F .2 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T he or ders at i s fi es al l thr ee r equi r ement s of the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. U ndert he 4 fi r s tr equi r ement , i t“conc l us i vel ydet erm i nes the di s put ed ques t i on, ” C ar rv. A m . R ed C r o s s , 17 F. 3d 671, 675 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , beca us e ther e i s no r eas on t o bel i eve the D i s tr i ct C o u rt w ill re c o n sid e r th e o rd e r p rio r to th e ter m in a tio n o f c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s. E v e n if the courtw er e t o r econs i deri taft erthe s t ayi s l i ft ed, acc es s t o the tr i al r ecor d w oul d have been de ni ed unt i l thatt i m e, ther ebyconcl us i vel ydet erm i ni ng the i s s ue of a cce s s t o the recor d d uri ng the cri m i nal pr oceed i ng s. T he seco nd requi rem ent i s sat i sfi ed b ecause F i rs t A m endmentand comm on l aw r i ght s of ac ces s t o tr i al pr ocee di ngs ar e i m por t antques t i ons “unr el at ed t o t he mer i t s of the under l y i ng cas e. ” I d. A s n o ted , p ro tec tiv e o rd e rs g e n e ra lly do noti m pl i cat e Fi r s tA m endmenti s s ues . B utpor t i ons of the s eal ed s um m aryj udgm ent r ecor d w er e notm arked conf i dent i al and w er e notcover ed bythe pr ot ect i ve or der . T he thi r d r equi r ementi s s at i s fi ed bec aus e eve n a t empora rydeni al of ac ces s t o tr i al pr ocee di ngs can i m pos e a s er i ous i nj urythat“w oul d eff ect i vel ybe unr evi ew abl e on appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent . ” I d. T he r i ghtt o engage i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed and tim e se n sitiv e c o m m u n ica tio n s m ig h t b e lo st, a n d a n yre lief th a t co u ld b e g ra n ted w o u ld b e s ta le . See Shi ngar a v. Ski l es , 4 2 0 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 B. A n o rd e r e ith e r g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g a c c e ss to p o rtio n s o f a trial re c o rd is a p p e a la b le a s a f

in a l o rd e r u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 123 F. 3d 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. A ntar , 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 5

– 5 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A ccordi ng l y , w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the A ug ust20 , 20 04 order deny i ng plai nti ffs’ m ot i on t o uns eal the s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d. 48

W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deri f the r ecor d demonstr at es “‘ an overr i di ng in ter e st b a se d o n f

in d in g s th a t clo su re is e ss e n tial to p re se rv e h ig h e r v a lu e s a n d is narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve thati nt er es t . ’ ” P ubl i cke rI ndus . , I nc. v. C ohen , 733 F. 2d 1059, 1073 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( quot i ng P r es s - E nt er pr is e C o. v. Super . C t . of C al . , R i ver

s i de C o u n ty , 46 4 U . S . 50 1, 51 0 (198 4)) . In the ab sence o f an o verr i ding i nter est , there i s a s tr o n g p re s u m p tio n in f a v o r o f p u b lic a c c e s s to ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s a n d re c o rd s . S e e id . I n P u b lic ke r, w e conc l uded r es tr i ct i ng di s cl os ur e of s ens i t i ve i nform at i on unt i l a di s tr i ct ju d g e d e ter m in e s its c o n f id e n tial sta tu s c a n c o n stitu te a n im p o rta n t o v e rrid in g in ter e st, s u f f ic ie n t to o u tw e ig h th e p re s u m p tio n in f a v o r o f a c c e s s . S e e id . at1071–72. N ot i ng

“ th e re a re c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re ‘d isc lo su re . . . w o u ld e f f e c tiv e lyn u lli f

y[ a p a rty ’s] c laim of pr i vi l eges w i thouta hea r i ng on the mer i t s , ’ ” i d. at1071 ( quot i ng G l obe N ew s paperC o. v . Su p e rio r C o u rt fo r N

o rfo lk C o u n ty , 457 U . S. 596, 609 n. 25 ( 1982) ) , w e s t at ed “[p] art i es ar e thus aff

or ded the opportuni tyt o r es ol ve thei rdi s put es i n courtw i thout aut om at i cal l ydes tr oy i ng the conf i dent i al i tyof ce r t ai n i nform at i on. ” I d. a t 1 0 7 2 . He r e , th e e x p l i c i tp u rp o s e o f th e s e a l i n g o r d e rwa s t o a l l o w t h e Di s tr i c tJ u d g e t i me t o m ake r eas oned j udgm ent s r egar di ng the mat er i al ’ s confi dent i al natur e and the pr i vacy conce rns of thi r d part i es . D ur i ng the t el econf er ence , he expl ai ned, “i f . . . s om e damage coul d be l i m i t ed byput t i ng m att er s unders eal , I w antt o puti tunders eal s oonerr ather th a n late r” (A p p . 3 9 ), p e n d in g re so lu tio n o f d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to se a l th e d o c u m e n ts perm anent l y . L at eri n t he conve r s at i on, he cr i t i ci zed the part i es for“us i ng i nform at i on9

th a t w a s d e liv e re d u n d e r a c o n f id e n tialitya g re e m e n t . . . as to w h ich th e re a re leg iti m a te pr i vacyconce r ns of thi r d part i es . ” ( A pp. 44. ) T he D i s tr i ctJ udge’ s conce rns aboutthi r dpartypr i vacyi nt er es t s w er e val i d. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thati f the mat er i al w er e r el eas ed, s er i ous harm coul d r es ul tt o t he pr i vacyi nt er es t s of pol i ce de part m entempl oy ees w ho w er e notpart i es t o t he ca s e. W e have r ecogni zed a n exce pt i on t o the pr es um pt i on of a c c e s s w h e re c o n f

id e n tia l m a te ri a l is d e te rm in e d to b e in ju ri o u s to th ir d p a rt ie s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C r i den , 6 8 1 F .2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ti d e n t i f i e d a n i mp o r t a n tc o u n t e r v a i l i n g i n t e r e s t

— a d e q u a t e t i me to m a k e re a so n e d ju d g m e n ts re g a rd in g th e m a ter ial’s c o n f id e n tial n a tu re a n d th ird -p a rty pr i vacyconce r ns — s uffi ci entt o outw ei gh the pr es um pt i on i n favorof ac ces s and t o j us t i fy a t empora rys eal i ng or der . A ccor di ngl y , w e bel i eve the t empora rys eal i ng or derw as j us t i fi ed atthe t i m e i tw as i s s ued. B utw hen the D i s tr i ctJ udge s t ay ed the ca s e, he di s m i s s ed al l pendi ng m ot i ons w i thoutpr ej udi ce, i ncl udi ng pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on t o uns eal the r ecor d. T he t empora r ys eal i ng or derbeca m e i ndefi ni t e, and forthe pas ttw enty - ei ght m onths , the publ i c has been de ni ed ac ces s t o m os tof the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng m anyfi l i ngs notcover ed bythe pr ot ect i ve or der . W e have not ed “[ e] ven i f the i ni t i al s eal i ng w as justi fied , w h en there is a su b seq u en t m o ti o n to rem o v e su ch a se al, the d istri ct co u rt s houl d cl os el yexami ne w hetherci r cumst ance s have c hanged s uffi ci ent l yt o al l ow the pr es um pt i on al l ow i ng acc es s t o courtr ecor ds t o pr evai l . ” Mi l l erv. I nd. H os p. , 16 F. 3d 549, 551–52 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . I n di s m i s s i ng al l pendi ng m ot i ons atthe t i m e of the s t ay , t heT he mem or andum opi ni on expl ai ns the D i s tr i ctJ udge “mer el yt ol d the part i es that 5 theys houl d s t ayaw ayfr om r evea l i ng i nform at i on thatcoul d r eas onabl ybe ca l l ed ‘c o n f id e n tia l’ u n d e r t h e te rm s o f th e iro w n A g re e m e n t a n d th e c o u rt ’s p ro te c tiv e o rd e r,” a n d th a t “if

th e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e d ire c tio n I g a v e th e p a rties c o v e re d so lely i nform at i on gi ven i n di s coverypur s uantt o the pr ot ect i ve or der , the ans w eri s y es . ” (M e m . O p . a t 1 4 .) 10 D i s tr i ctC our tm i ghtnothave r eal i zed the s t ayw oul d change the natur e of the s eal i ng or der , s hi ft i ng the bal ance betw een the s tr ong pr es um pt i on of ac ces s and the c o u n ter v a ili n g in ter e sts f a v o rin g c o n f

id e n tiality . T h e D istric t Ju d g e ’s n e e d f o r tim e to e v a lu a te th e p a rties ’ re sp e c tiv e p o sitio n s a n d th ird p a rtyp riv a c yin ter e sts

— su f f icie n tly im p o rt a n t to ju s tif

ya te m p o ra ry se a lin g o rd e r— c a n n o t ju s tif ya n in d e f

in ite s e a lin g o rd e r. A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tthe ques t i on of w hetherther e i s cont i nui ng j us t i fi cat i on forthe s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d t o be s eal ed. C. In h is D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n , the D istric t Ju d g e sta ted th a t h is i ns truct i on r egar di ng comm uni cat i ons w i th the pr es s w as expl i ci t l ynota “bl anket‘ gag o rd e r’” o n a ll p u b lic c o m m u n ica tio n s a b o u t th e c a se , b u t ra th e r a n in stru c tio n to re f ra in fr om s peaki ng aboutconfi dent i al m at er i al . ( M em. O p. 14. ) Pl ai nt i ffs r ecogni ze the 5 m emora ndum opi ni on l i m i t s the s cope of the or dert o i nform at i on cover ed bythe pr ot ect i ve or der , butcont end ther e i s a “di s connec tbetw een the l ow ercourt ’ s ear l i er act i ons and i t s r ece ntw or ds . ” ( A ppel l ant s L ett erB r . at4. ) T heycont end the m emora ndum opi ni on “i m pl i ci t l yvaca t es and l i m i t s the s cope of the ea r l i eroverbr oadW e ques t i on w hetherthe al l eged i nj uryt o pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el can s erve as the bas i s for 6 pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enge t o t he or der . B uteven a s s um i ng the al l eged i nj uryi s t o pl ai nt i ffs them selv es a n d to the p u b li c, w e d o n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew this ord er. It w o u ld a p p e a r t h e s ta yh a s tr a n s f o rm e d th is te m p o ra ry o rd e r i n to a n in d e f in ite o n e . 7 B utw e not e a di ffe r ence betw een a t empora ryor derof i ndefi ni t e dur at i on and an or der that“conc l us i vel ydet erm i nes the di s put ed ques t i on” underthe fi r s tr equi r ementof the c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . C a r r, 17 F. 3d at675. I n deny i ng al l pendi ng m ot i ons w i thout p re ju d ice a t th e tim e o f

th e sta y , the D istric t Ju d g e sta ted “ [ a ]n yp a rtym a yre n e w th e ir m ot i ons w hen the s t ayi s l i ft ed. ” ( A pp. 62. ) I n l i ghtof thi s , w e ca nnotconcl ude the D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n c lu s iv e ly d e te rm in e d th e q u e s tio n . 11 gag or der . ” Id . B eca us e of the “w r ong” s uffe r ed bypl ai nt i ffs ’ l ead c ouns el i n the i nt er i m , theycont end thei rchal l enge t o the or al or derr es tr i ct i ng comm uni cat i on w i th the

6 p re s s f a lls w ith in th e “ c a p a b le o f re p e titio n , y e t e v a d in g re v ie w ” e x c e p tio n to m o o tn e s s . S e e So . Pa c . T

e r mi n a lCo . v . ICC , 2 1 9 U .S . 4 9 8 , 5 1 5 (1 9 1 1 ). W e do no tcon si der w hetherthe o rderres tri ct i ng com m un i cat i on w i th the press fal l s w i thi n thi s exce pt i on beca us e thi s non- fi nal or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdoes not s a t i s f yth e f i r s to rth i r d r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e c o l l a t e r a l o r d e rd o c tr i n e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we have no j ur i s di ct i on. T he or derdoes nots at i s fythe fi r s tr equi r ementof the doctr i ne b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t c o n c lu s iv e ly d e te rm in e th e d is p u te d q u e s tio n . S e e C a r r, 17 F. 3d at 6 7 5 . T h e o rd e r w a s to “ [ m ]a in tain . . . to th e f u lles t ex ten t p o ss ib le a sta tu s q u o w ith r es pectt o confi dent i al i nform at i on, ” pendi ng r evi ew of def endant s ’ m ot i on t o s eal the su m m aryjud g m en t plead ing s. (A p p . 4 5

– 4 6 . ) Itw as e x p li cit lyinten d ed to b e a tem p o rary o rde r. 7Pl ai nt i ffs r el yon U n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 263 F. 3d 80 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , i n ar gui ng t hat 8 th e o ra l o rd e r is a p p e a lab le u n d e r th e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e . B u t Scar f o is di s t i ngui s habl e. U nderthe fi r s tr equi r ementof the doctr i ne, the di s tr i ctcourti n Sc a rfo “fi nall yand con cl usi velyenter ed a g ag o rder , ” res trai ning t he d efen dan t ’s form er defense (c o n tin u e d ...) 12 N ordoes the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or ders at i s fythe thi r d r equi r ement , s i nce i tcan be e f f e c tiv e ly re v ie w e d o n a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t. S e e C a r r, 1 7 F . 3 d at 67 5 . In Shi ngar a v. Ski l es , 4 2 0 F .3 d 3 0 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w e c o n sid e re d th is iss u e w ith re sp e c t to a n o rd e r d e n y in g a m o tio n to v a c a te a p ro tec tiv e o rd e r. W e n o ted tw o p ro b lem s w ith del ay i ng r evi ew . Fi r s t , the i s s ue mi ghtbecome m ooti f the conf i dent i al i tyr es tr i ct i ons w e re re la x e d b e f

o re a p p e a l f

ro m a f in a l o rd e r. Id . a t 3 0 5 . S e c o n d , an yre lief th a t co u ld be gr ant ed w oul d be “s t al e” be caus e “a new s paper[w as ] bei ng cons tr ai ned i n i t s att empt t o obt ai n i nform at i on s o t hati tcan r eportthe new s , and i n s uch a s i tuat i on t i m e i s of the es s ence . ” I

d. P lain tiff

s a c k n o w led g e th e iss u e in th is c a se is a lre a d ym o o t u n les s it f a lls w ith in th e “ c a p a b le o f

re p e titio n , y e t e v a d in g re v ie w ” e x c e p tio n . So . Pa c . T e r mi n a lCo , 219 U . S. at515. W e bel i eve the ques t i on of w hetheri tfal l s w i thi n thi s exce pt i on can be ef fe cti v elyrev iew ed o n ap p ea l from a f inal jud g m en t. B ec au se o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s cl ar i fi cat i on of the s cope of the or der , pl ai nt i ffs ar e notbei ng r es tr ai ned fr om comm uni cat i ng non- confi dent i al m at er i al , and nei therpl ai nt i ffs northe publ i c w i l l s uffe r fur therharm betw een the pr es entand appe al fr om a fi nal or der . A ccor di ngl y , ther e i s no r i s k thatl at err evi ew “w i l l be fut i l e” be caus e i tw i l l aff or d onl y“s t al e r el i ef. ” Sh i ng ha ra , 420 F. 3d at305. 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 c o u n s e l f ro m d is c u s s in g th e c a s e w ith th e p re s s . Sc a rfo , 2 6 3 F . 3 d at 87 . T h e c o u rt e x p lic itly in v ite d a n a p p e a l o f th e o rd e r. Id . H e re , the o rd e r w a s in ten d e d to re m a in in e f f e c t o n ly u n til th e D is tr ic t J u d g e ru le d o n th e a lle g e d b re a c h o f th e p ro te c tiv e o rd e r. U nderthe thi r d r equi r ement , the att orneychal l engi ng the or deri n Scar f o w as no l onger i nvol ved i n t he cr i m i nal cas e and w oul d be unabl e t o chal l enge the or deron appea l fr om f in a l ju d g m e n t. S e e Sc a rfo , 263 F. 3d at88. H er e, pl ai nt i ffs can c hal l enge the or al or der on appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , and w e ca n eff ect i vel yr evi ew the or deratthatt i m e. 13 III . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th, w e w i l l di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on pl ai nt i ffs ’ appea l of the A ugus t20, 2004 or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o voi d the pr ot ect i ve or derand the J anuary15, 2004 or al or dernott o comm uni cat e w i th the pr es s r egar di ng confi dent i al i nform at i on. W e w i l l vaca t e the A ugus t20, 2004 or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o uns eal t he s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d and r emand t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.