Opinion ID: 186942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Close Relationship

Text: 27 Taylor acknowledges he and Herrick know each other, have a common interest in the preservation of antique aircraft, and belong to many of the same aviation associations. In his view, however, a close association for res judicata purposes is a relationship like that between family members or business partners—the examples we mentioned in Ethnic Employees of the Library of Congress v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1411 n. 8 (1985). Amicus Public Citizen relatedly posits the relationship must be one such that Herrick would have understood he was representing Taylor in the first lawsuit or would have made a special effort to represent Taylor's interests. See, e.g., Martin, 407 F.3d at 651-52; Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 193 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc); Pollard v. Cockrell, 578 F.2d 1002, 1008-09 (5th Cir.1978). 28 Unlike the courts just cited, we do not believe that only a legal relationship may qualify as a close relationship. Whether two individuals have sufficiently close connections that one may act as the virtual representative of the other is a functional, not a formal question. See Chase, 56 F.3d at 346. This is a case in point. Contrary to Taylor's argument, the record before us indicates Herrick and Taylor were not merely people who happened to share a common interest and membership in the same organizations, but knew each other quite well: Herrick asked Taylor to assist him in restoring his F-45, provided information to Taylor that Herrick had obtained through discovery, and at summary judgment Taylor did not oppose Fairchild's characterization of Herrick as his close associate. Taylor argues he did not do so because he assumed the phrase meant only that they know each other and belong to many of [the] same aviation associations and because he did not understand it to imply [they] were close associates prior to Taylor's FOIA request. In fact, however, both the Government and Fairchild invoked Taylor's close relationship to Herrick as evidence indicative of privity; Taylor therefore knew the point of Fairchild's characterization, yet his only response was to say mere common membership does not create power in on[e] member to represent others. In light of these facts, and the complete lack of any evidence submitted by Taylor in opposition, we conclude Taylor and Herrick were in a close relationship for the purpose of determining whether Herrick was Taylor's virtual representative in the prior litigation.