Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 2161 (2008) Brent TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Robert A. STURGELL, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, et al. No. 07-371. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 16, 2008. Decided June 12, *2166 Adina H. Rosenbaum, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Respondent. Catherine E. Stetson, Respondent The Fairchild Corporation Michael John Pangia, Brian Wolfman, Scott L. Nelson, Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Jeffrey Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney Edwin Kneedler, Deputy to the Leonard Schaitman, Kamenshine, D.C., Emily M. Yinger, N. Thomas Connally, Smith, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean, VA, Christopher T. Handman, Dominic F. Perella, Corporation. Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. "It is a principle general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one not bound by judgment personam *2167 litigation which he designated as party or has been made service process." Hansberry Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40, 61 115, 85 Ed. 22 (1940). Several exceptions, recognized this Court's decisions, temper basic rule. In class action, example, person named may be on merits if she was adequately represented who actively participated litigation. See id., at 41, 115. case, we consider first time whether there "virtual representation" exception rule against precluding nonparties. Adopted number courts, including courts below case now before us, so styled broader than any have far approved. virtual representation question examine arises following context. Petitioner Taylor filed lawsuit under Freedom Information Act seeking certain documents from Administration. Greg Herrick, Taylor's friend, had previously brought an unsuccessful suit same records. two men no legal relationship, and evidence controlled, financed, in, even notice Herrick's earlier suit. Nevertheless, D.C. Circuit held precluded Herrick because, court's assessment, qualified representative." We disapprove doctrine preclusion representation," hold, based record it stands, does bar maintaining I (FOIA) accords "any person" right request records federal agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (2006 ed.). No reason need given FOIA request, unless requested materials fall within Act's enumerated exemptions, see 552(a)(3)(E), (b), agency must "make promptly available" requester, 552(a)(3)(A). If refuses furnish records, requester file court obtain injunction "order[ing] production improperly withheld." 552(a)(4)(B). instant barred Because lower courts' decisions turned connection between lawsuits, begin with full account each action. A antique aircraft enthusiast owner F-45 airplane, vintage model manufactured Engine Airplane (FEAC) 1930's. 1997, information would help him restore his plane its original condition, asking Administration (FAA) copies technical about contained agency's To gain certificate authorizing manufacture sale F-45, FEAC submitted FAA's predecessor, Civil Aeronautics Authority, detailed specifications other data plane. Hundreds pages produced certification process remain FAA denied however, upon finding sought are subject FOIA's exemption "trade secrets commercial financial *2168 obtained privileged confidential," 552(b)(4) administrative appeal, urged successors waived trade-secret protection. thereupon contacted FEAC's corporate successor, respondent (Fairchild). objected release documents, adhered decision. then District Wyoming. Challenging invocation exemption, placed heavy weight 1955 letter Authority. authorized lend files public "for use making repairs replacement parts Fairchild." Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1193 (C.A.10 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). This broad authorization, maintained, showed could regarded "secre[t]" "confidential" meaning 552(b)(4). Rejecting argument, granted summary FAA. 200 Supp. 2d 1321, 1328-1329 (D.Wyo.2000). letter, reasoned, did deprive status, those were never fact released pursuant letter's blanket authorization. 1329. also stated protection, successfully "reversed" waiver objecting Herrick. Ibid. On Tenth agreed stripped F.3d, 1194. But Appeals upheld alternative determination i.e., restored status request. Id., 1195. ground, appeals affirmed entry ruling, noted failed challenge suppositions underlying First, assumed "restored" lost 1194, n. 10. Second, regained though company claimed only "after initiated request" expressed validity these suppositions. 1194-1195, B Circuit's decision issued July 24, 2002. Less month later, August 22, petitioner Taylora friend own rightsubmitted unsuccessfully sued obtain. When respond, complaint Columbia. Like argued their status. litigate issues concerning recapture protected raise appeal Circuit. After intervened defendant,[1]*2169 concluded claim preclusion; accordingly, acknowledged Relying Eighth Tyus Schoemehl, 93 449 (1996), nonparty "virtually represented" party. App. Pet. Cert. 30a-31a. seven-factor test representation, adopted requires "identity interests" judgment. 31a. Tyus, 455. Six additional factors counsel favor test, but prerequisites: (1) "close relationship" present alleged preclusive; (2) "participation prior litigation" party; (3) party's "apparent acquiescence" preclusive effect judgment; (4) "deliberat[e] maneuver[ing]" avoid (5) adequate adjudication; (6) raising "public law" rather "private issue. 31a (citing 454-456). These factors, observed, "constitute fluid imprecise boundaries" call "a broad, case-by-case inquiry." 32a. revealed facts relationship Herrick: president Antique Aircraft Association, organization belongs; associate[s]," 54; asked they contract agreement participation restoration; lawyer litigation; apparently gave during discovery conceded determined, ranked representative because fit six indicators list. 32a-35a. Accordingly, suit, requested, 35a. affirmed. It first, Circuits "vary widely" approaches representation. Blakey, 490 965, 971 (2007). regard, contrasted multifactor balancing applied Fourth narrower approach, "treats `accountable nonparties subsequent suit' `the tacit approval court' act nonpart[ies'] behalf." (quoting Klugh States, 818 F.2d 294, 300 (C.A.4 1987)). both approaches, announced five-factor *2170 test. factors"identity "adequate representation" necessary sufficient 971-972. addition, least three established: close putative representative," "substantial case," "tactical maneuvering part judgment." 972. Applying found conditions well met. As identity interests, emphasized resultrelease documents. Moreover, owned therefore "if anything, stronger incentive litigate" Taylor, "general interest disclosure preservation heritage." 973 Turning adequacy some regard essential 973-974 Perez Volvo Car Corp., 247 303, 312 (C.A.1 2001), Tice American Airlines, Inc., 162 966, (C.A.7 1998)). Disagreeing deemed "important" indispensable element inquiry. received For conclusion, relied "strong later engagement attorney, indicated satisfaction attorney's performance case. 974-975. criterion met, "asked assist restoring F-45" "provided through discovery"; furthermore, "did oppose Fairchild's characterization `close associate.'" 975. above-described sufficed establish left open engaged maneuvering." 976 (calling bearing tactical "ambigu[ous]").[2] certiorari, 552 ___, 977, 169 800 (2008), resolve disagreement among over permissibility scope representation."[3] *2171 II federal-court determined common law. Semtek Int'l Inc. Lockheed Martin 531 497, 507-508, 121 1021, 149 32 (2001). judgments federal-question cases  participate developing "uniform rule[s]" res judicata, ultimate authority determine declare. 508, 1021.[4] law is, course, due limitations. Richards Jefferson County, 517 793, 797, 116 1761, 135 76 (1996). presents issue impression sense: Until now, addressed (in varying forms) several below. Our inquiry, guided well-established precedent regarding propriety preclusion. review taking up directly defined preclusion, collectively referred "res judicata."[5] Under final forecloses "successive very claim, relitigation raises suit." New Hampshire Maine, 532 742, 748, 1808, 968 Issue contrast, bars actually litigated resolved valid judgment," recurs context different claim. 748-749, 1808. By "preclud[ing] parties contesting matters fair opportunity litigate," doctrines protect "the expense vexation attending multiple conserv[e] judicial resources, foste[r] reliance action minimizing possibility inconsistent decisions." Montana 440 147, 153-154, 99 970, 59 210 (1979). generally "full claims settled thus runs "deep-rooted historic tradition everyone should day court." Richards, U.S., 798, 1761 Indicating strength tradition, often repeated "one Hansberry, also, e.g., 1761; Wilks, 755, 761, 109 2180, 104 835 (1989); Zenith *2172 Radio Corp. Hazeltine Research, 395 100, 110, 89 1562, 23 129 (1969). Though hardly doubt, exceptions. purposes, exceptions can grouped into categories.[6] "[a] agrees others accordance terms agreement." 1 Restatement (Second) Judgments p. 390 (1980) (hereinafter Restatement). separate actions involving transaction plaintiffs defendant, all agree defendant's liability will definitely way other, `test case.'" Shapiro, Procedure: Preclusion Actions 77-78 (2001) Shapiro). California Texas, 459 1096, 1097, 103 714, 74 944 (1983) (dismissing defendants stipulation "that said . Court" specified issue).[7] justified variety pre-existing "substantive relationship[s]" Shapiro 78. 1761. Qualifying relationships include, limited to, preceding succeeding owners property, bailee bailor, assignee assignor. 2 §§ 43-44, 52, 55. originated "as much needs property values 18A C. Wright, Miller, Cooper, Practice Procedure 4448, 329 (2d ed.2002) Wright Miller).[8] Third, confirmed that, "in circumstances," "adequately someone interests [wa]s party" Representative suits include properly conducted actions, Martin, 762, 2, 2180 Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23), *2173 trustees, guardians, fiduciaries, Sea-Land Services, Gaudet, 414 573, 593, 94 806, 39 9 (1974). 41. Fourth, "assume[d] control" rendered. Montana, 154, 970. Schnell Peter Eckrich Sons, 365 260, 262, 4, 81 557, 546 (1961); 39. such proofs argument," already "had court" formal Comment a, 382. Fifth, force relitigating proxy. order when brings adjudication. Chicago, R.I. P.R. Co. Schendel, 270 611, 620, 623, 46 420, 70 757 (1926); Miller 4454, pp. 433-434. And although our directly, seems clear appropriate agent 4449, 335. Sixth, circumstances special statutory scheme "expressly foreclos[e] successive nonlitigants. otherwise consistent 2180. Examples schemes bankruptcy probate proceedings, ibid., quo warranto "under [the governing] law, [may] behalf large," 804, III Reaching beyond established categories, Decisions consistent. 4457, 513 (virtual lacks "clear coherent theory"; applying "an episodic quality"). Some label, define See, Becherer Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner 193 415, 423, 427 (C.A.6 1999). Eighth, Ninth, Circuits, apply tests permit cases do supra, 2168-2170, 3. Circuit, FAA, presented arguments support expansive find none them persuasive. purported ground stating circumstances, proceeding yielding 970-971. definition strayed attributed term. reviewed Alabama holding tax upholding *2174 taxpayers. 795-797, sue class," purport assert nonparties," bind" 801, There indication, emphasized, "took care absent parties, "understood [parties]." 802, held, guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment." stated, without elaboration, "read hold procedures followed [to nonparty] understood representing nonparty." 971. saw principal reasons: strong litigate; hired lawyer, suggesting "satisfaction case." misapprehended Richards. just recounted, judicata violated lack either nonparties' understanding concerned capacity. 801-802, "adequate" purposes (at minimum) present. restated Richards' core South Central Bell Telephone Alabama, 526 160, 119 1180, 143 258 (1999). rejecting group taxpayers taxpayer. 164-165, 1180. Bell, lawyers employed plaintiffs. 167-168, 973-975. Yet process. inquiry came end themselves acting capacity safeguard absentees. 168, recognizing provide theory argue fits grounds Rather, ask us abandon attempt delineate discrete rules altogether. order, contend, whenever non-party *2175 enough' bring second litigant Brief 20. 22-24. Courts make enough" determination, urge, "heavily fact-driven" "equitable" ("there test" rather, "equitable fact-intensive" demanded omitted)). Only sort diffuse balancing, argue, situations appropriate. reject argument reasons. emphasize fundamental nature 798-799, 761-762, endeavored "limited circumstances." Respondents' amorphous odds constrained approach advance. Resisting reading precedents, respondents view supportive espouse. quotes statement Coryell Phipps, 317 406, 411, 63 291, 87 363 (1943), privity "turns particular cases." That observation, scarcely implies governed test.[9] cites Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, University Ill. Foundation, 402 313, 334, 91 1434, 28 788 (1971), estoppel questions turn trial sense justice equity." passing statement, mind; appeared discussion district discretion limit persons Blonder-Tongue, 1434. relies States Des Moines Valley R. Co., 84 40 (C.A.8 1897), quoted 619-620, 420. quiet title plaintiff Government, "no land" "simply permitted landowner] name nominal plaintiff." F., 42. barred, landowner. explained: "[W]here government lends enable private maintain another," "subject defenses exist real interest." 43. Valley, contended oral demonstrates sometimes bind Tr. Oral Arg. 31-33. Properly understood, simply fifth basis described above: *2176 relitigate adverse 2172-2173.[10] precedents lax advocated respondents. rests limitations if, minimum: her aligned, 43, 115; herself took nonparty, 2173-2174. represented, 1761.[11] class-action context, implemented procedural safeguards 23. An "recogniz[e], effect, common-law kind action." Tice, 972 authorize nonparties, shorn protections prescribed protections, grounded process, circumvented approve allowed "create de facto will." 973. likely create more headaches relieves. Most obviously, significantly complicate task faced instance questions. all-things-considered might spark wide-ranging, time-consuming, expensive tracking potentially relevant seven- five-prong tests. after established, judges called evaluate standard provides firm guidance. 455 (conceding "there determining applicability of" case). doctrine, recalled, intended *2177 reduce burden parties. Cf. "In area law," agree, "`crisp sharp corners' preferable round-about opaque standards." Bittinger Tecumseh Products 123 877, 881 1997). C Finally, relying 456, maintains broadly "public-law" "private-law" controversies. position, offers arguments. urges, acknowledges cases, reduced controlling "because issue." 28. taxpayer challenges misuse funds" "other action," observed "has indirect impact plaintiff's] interests." 803, character, said, "we assume wide latitude proceedings entertained." falls category contends, duty disclose owed generally." 34. opening sentence FOIA, true, states agencies "shall [information] available public." 552(a) Equally times vindicates "public" interest. E.g., National Archives Records Admin. Favish, 541 157, 172, 124 1570, 158 319 (2004). Act, instructs receiving requests large, "person" 552(a)(3)(B) ("In paragraph, shall [readily reproducible] form format ." (emphasis added)); Security Archive Amici Curiae 10 ("Government systematically public."). Thus, contrast public-law contemplated successful results grant relief individual plaintiff, decree benefiting large. Furthermore, type envisioned, free adopt limiting repetitive instances foreclosed state suit] large." 1761.[12]Richards spoke legislation, appears equally evident Congress, providing vindicating interest, "limit follows, proscribe confine requesters. Indeed, Congress' provision constraint counsels imposition constraints *2178 extraordinary next argues threat vexatious heightened" standing limitless." allow whose resort determination. 552(a)(3)(A), (4)(B) Thus theoretically possible coordinate mount series lawsuits. convinced risk justifies departure usual governing stare decisis swiftly dispose circuit. dispositive, human tendency waste money deter bringing adversely others." 97. intuition borne out experience: attention abusive virtual-representation advocate here. IV foregoing reasons, rested. effects decided instead according opinion. Part II-B, supra. Although references proliferated unlikely occasion great shift actual practice. Many opinions term reaching arguably defensible grounds. 535-539, 38 (collecting cases). dropping label lead clearer analysis little, any, change outcomes. ("[T]he `virtual representation' cast shadows light problem [of preclusion]."). extend latter doctrine's proper bounds. back result reached uncontested four here: indication litigation, exercised control implicates relitigation. Neither nor contends otherwise. cannot Nothing indicates himself suing behalf, knew Wyoming interests. pathmarking precedent, therefore, *2179 "adequate." leaves category: He concedes, demonstrate "undisclosed agen[t]." 23, 4. 5. Respondents here, below, collusive 18; 18-19, 33, considered similar addressing maneuvering" prong 976. not, treat agency, expressly declined reach definitive conclusions ambiguity facts." remand give pursuing agent. concedes 56-57. showing required adjudication become litigating briefed detail, discuss matter elaboratively note, cautious basis. mere whiff suffice; instead, principles suggestive. They indicate agent's conduct Agency 14, 60 (1957) ("A respect entrusted him.").[13] remand, suggests, bear proving defendant points establishing litigants, maintains, [should] shif[t] submit refuting charge" 27-28. proposed burden-shift "it opposing access direct collusion." 28, 14. suggestion. Claim like affirmative defense. 8(c); 350, Ordinarily, incumbent *2180 plead prove defense, Jones Bock, 549 199, 204, 127 910, 166 798 (2007), rule, 18 4405, 83 ("[A] asserting carry elements."). acknowledge justifying hands defendants. 155, 970 (listing suit). "[v]ery adversary superior proof." K. Broun, McCormick Evidence 337, 475 (6th ed.2006). situations, targeted interrogatories deposition disparity. greater cause here defense disturb traditional allocation proof burden. * reasons Columbia vacated, remanded further ordered. NOTES [1] provided amicus brief 1188 2002); 1327 (D.Wyo. 2000). [2] distinction private-law claims. [3] Ninth applies Circuit's. Kourtis Cameron, 419 989, 996 (2005). Eleventh requiring, inter alia, existence representative. Pollard Cockrell, 578 1002, 1008 (C.A.5 1978); Fenner, 424 1999); EEOC Pemco Aeroplex, 383 1280, 1289 (C.A.11 2004). Seventh rejected Perry Globe Auto Recycling, 227 950, 953 (2000). [4] diversity incorporates State rendering sits. [5] replaced confusing lexicon. describes formerly known "merger" "bar," while encompasses once "collateral estoppel" "direct estoppel." Migra Warren City School Dist. Bd. Ed., 465 75, 77, 1, 892, 79 56 (1984). [6] organized differently. 39-62 Restatement); 75-92 (2001); 327-329 Miller). list follows meant framework consideration taxonomy. [7] observes express implied agreement, inducing others. 62. 4453, 425-429. [8] substantive "privity." (1996); 62, a. "privity," come used broadly, conclusion ground. 351-353, 33 ward off confusion, using "privity" [9] interpreted statute shipowner liability. 407-408, (1943). explaining why defer findings comment privity. 291. [10] urges landowner Attorney's 33. point debatable. 42-43 1897) (the "nominal plaintiff"; merely "len[t]" landowner). correct plainly landowner's 42 ("The bill conceal purpose champion ."). 618-620, (1926) (classifying representation). [11] suggested suits, monetary relief. (1940), Eisen Carlisle Jacquelin, 417 156, 177, 2140, 732 (1974), Mullane Hanover Bank Trust 339 306, 319, 652, 865 (1950)). deciding overcome circumstances. [12] Nonparty ranks sixth suits. 2173. [13] (1979), suggests "control" controlled contractor. lesser switchedthat itself, 618, 420 ("[I]f, contemplation, parties" identity" reversed.).

Classification Label: 8