Court Opinion

ID: 9488959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:00:56.469344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:12.982134
License: Public Domain

*229BAILEY BROWN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
While I have no quarrel with the majority’s analysis of the law generally prohibiting prior restraints, I must respectfully dissent because I would hold this case effectively moot, and thus I would not reach the First Amendment issue.1 Business Week has its documents, and it has published its story. Indeed, the magazine has long since printed excerpts from the once-sealed material on its cover. Moreover, I do not believe the case presents issues that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
A. Factual Background
Two American corporate giants, Procter & Gamble (P & G) and Bankers Trust (BT), are involved in high-stakes, high-profile litigation about the sale of derivatives, which are a particularly newsworthy investment these days. As part of this litigation, plaintiff P & G sought documents from defendant BT about its derivatives sales practices, and BT eventually parted with those documents.2 BT did so, however, under seal, pursuant to an existing court order entered by Judge Rubin. Although aware of that order, Business Week reporters managed to get the documents, and the magazine was about to print a story concerning their contents as part of its ongoing coverage of the lawsuit. The district court, at the urging of both P & G and BT, faxed what amounted to a temporary restraining order to Business Week, forbidding the publishing of the story about the documents.
Rather than present its prior restraint case to the district judge, Business Week initially, and unsuccessfully, sought relief from one judge of this court, then from another panel of this court, and then from our Circuit Justice on the Supreme Court. While before the prior panel of this court, the magazine did not petition for a writ of mandamus. Rather, it sought a stay of the order and an expedited appeal. Joint Appendix at 55-56. The prior panel viewed the matter as an appeal of a temporary restraining order, and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Circuit Justice Stevens denied the magazine’s application for an emergency stay of that order, and recommended that the parties return to the district court. McGraw-Hill Cos. v. Procter & Gamble Co., — U.S. -, ---, 116 S.Ct. 6, 6-7, 132 L.Ed.2d 892 (Stevens, Circuit Justice 1995).
The parties returned to the district court the very day Justice Stevens handed down his opinion. After holding a two-day hearing on the matter, the district court extended its original restraining order for ten days while it held more hearings. Eventually, on October 3, 1995, the district court simultaneously issued two orders. One order permanently enjoined Business Week from publishing the documents which its reporters had obtained. The second order, however, rendered the first a virtual nullity, because it concurrently unsealed the filed documents, thereby enabling Business Week to publish its story. As previously noted, the magazine has done so.3
*230B. Mootness
A ease is moot when no live controversy remains, and no live controversy remains when a court cannot provide effective relief. See, e.g., Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199, 108 S.Ct. 523, 527-28, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988). Mootness is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction with its roots in the Constitution, which limits our jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2. This ease elegantly demonstrates why the framers so limited our jurisdiction.
Given the district court’s unsealing of the documents at issue, we cannot provide any effective relief; thus, no live controversy remains. Business Week has received the relief it wanted, albeit not in the manner it expected. At this point, we need only provide the established two-part remedy for moot cases: (1) vacate, as moot, the district court’s order permanently enjoining Business Week’s publication of the documents it obtained, and (2) remand with instructions to dismiss the case. Deakins, 484 U.S. at 200, 108 S.Ct. at 528-29; WJW-TV, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 878 F.2d 906, 911-12 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 819, 110 S.Ct. 74, 107 L.Ed.2d 41 (1989).
The majority, however, would review this case for two reasons. First, the majority determines that the propriety of issuing the temporary restraining orders falls within the mootness doctrine exception for matters “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” E.g., Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). Second, as the majority notes, the permanent injunction issued by the district court with respect to the copies of the documents obtained by Business Week technically remains in effect. Thus, the majority contends, the question of whether the district court erred in issuing the injunction is not moot. I disagree on both points.
1. The temporary restraining orders.
As the Southern Pacific Terminal Co. case demonstrates, courts created the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine “because of the necessity or propriety of deciding some question of law presented which might serve to guide [a decision-maker] when again called upon to act in the matter.” Id. at 516, 31 S.Ct. at 284 (quoting Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 415, 419 (9th Cir.1904)). This exception has since evolved into a pair of particularized inquiries, and only if we have affirmative answers to both questions may we apply the exception. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 348-49, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). First, we ask whether there is a “reasonable expectation” or a “demonstrable probability” that the same complaining party will confront this same situation again. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1184, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam); Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. at 349. If the answer is yes, we have a situation “capable of repetition.” Second, we ask whether the lifespan of the particular debate has a predetermined limit, such that it could never be fully litigated before its cessation. Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482, 102 S.Ct. at 1183-84; Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. at 348-49. If it does, we have a situation “evading review.”
Assuming, without deciding, that what happened in this case is capable of repetition,4 I do not believe that it will evade review. First, if a district court confronted a similar situation and issued similar orders to Business Week again, I believe that the district court would (as the court was prepared to do in this case) review the matter immediately. See Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2802-03, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (stating that even minimal interference with First Amendment freedoms is an irreparable injury). That sort of immediate review would almost certainly have happened here, had Business Week chosen to make its application in the district court before it moved up the appel*231late ladder. Instead of seeking an immediate hearing before the district judge on the temporary order (and the order’s prompt dissolution), however, Business Week chose to come to one judge, and then a panel, of this court, and then it appealed to our Circuit Justice.5 Only then did it return to the district court, where the hearings were held.
Second, and more importantly, if Business Week finds itself in this situation again and again chooses to seek immediate appellate review, the matter would not evade review, even given the short life of temporary orders. This is so because an established body of Sixth Circuit precedent provides for prompt review of — and, almost certainly, relief from — such orders with a petition for a writ of mandamus. Business Week, however, framed its emergency appeal simply as a request for a stay of the district court’s order and a request for an expedited appeal. Had Business Week presented a petition for a writ of mandamus, we could have turned to that body of law and rapidly dealt with the prior restraint question.
The pellucid opinion in In re King World Productions, 898 F.2d 56 (6th Cir.1990) (Martin, J.), is precisely on point. King World involved a temporary restraining order which enjoined the television broadcast of footage which, according to the plaintiff, was obtained in violation of federal and state law. This court entertained a petition for a writ of mandamus only eight days after the district court entered its order, and this court issued its opinion within three days after that hearing. We stated that “mandamus is the only vehicle for obtaining appellate review of an improperly issued temporary restraining order when the first amendment runs afoul of a conflicting right and prior restraint may result.” King World, 898 F.2d at 59. We proceeded to issue the writ because the plaintiff below in that case could not show that he would “suffer an irreparable harm great enough to justify a prior restraint.” Id. at 60.
The majority argues that mandamus is an inadequate vehicle for review of prior restraints because “[i]t requires an obvious error in which officials or judges grossly exceed their authority, and it is a discretionary writ.” Majority Op. at 224. While the majority recites the correct standard for determining when this court should use its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus, it errs in its implicit determination that the situation presented by this case (or any other alleged prior restraint by a district judge) might not warrant review and remediation through a writ of mandamus. In. King World, this court painstakingly considered facts strikingly similar to those in this case within the framework for determining whether a writ of mandamus should issue, and we concluded that it should. King World, 898 F.2d at 58-59.
In fact, for the reasons ably set forth in the substantive portion of the majority opinion, I cannot imagine a case more appropriate for mandamus review than this one. Thus, I find most curious the majority’s statement that “important issues raised by the unusual circumstances of a prior restraint, including the time and manner in which a court must address a TRO petition, would always evade review absent this exception to mootness.” Majority Op. at 224. This court has already addressed such prior restraints issued by district courts and struck them down as such. King World, 898 F.2d at 60; see also United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596, 598-600 (6th Cir.1987) (Merritt, J.) (holding that a broad, interlocutory “gag” order in a mail and bank fraud case involving a congressman which prohibited the congressman from discussing his case, even with other members of Congress or on the floor of the House of Representatives was (1) “appealable as [a 28 U.S.C.] § 1291 final order[ ] under the ‘collateral order’ doctrine ... as well as in mandamus,” and (2) an impermissible prior restraint); CBS Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234, 237 (6th Cir.1975) (per curiam) (holding that mandamus permitted appellate review of a district court order restraining public comment by the parties, as well as *232their friends and relatives, in the civil litigation arising from the tragic shootings at Kent State University).
These important cases evidently eluded Business Week, for under the clear holdings of these cases, Business Week could have obtained prompt review of its contention that the district court’s order was an unconstitutional prior restraint. Attorneys should be aware that these cases are available authority for obtaining proper and prompt review of the propriety of any future prior restraints similar to the one in the instant case. Thus, if a situation such as the one before us arises again in this circuit, it most certainly would not evade review, because the harmed party could immediately petition for a writ of mandamus.
2. The permanent injunction.
As for the permanent injunction, the mere fact that it is “technically” still in effect does not create a basis for review of this case. To hold otherwise, as the majority does, shakes the mootness doctrine to its very foundations. Every time an appellate court holds that a case has become moot after the lower court disposed of it, some judgment or order of the lower court “remains technically in effect,” as the majority states. Majority Op. at 224. The appropriate question is, can we provide effective relief given the case before us? Deakins, 484 U.S. at 199-200, 108 S.Ct. at 527-29. In this ease, we cannot. As previously explained, Business Week has already published excerpts from the documents affected by the injunction. Presumably, it could bind the documents into a special edition and publish them in their entirety, if it so chose.
Moreover, this “technical” argument completely ignores our established procedure for handling moot cases: we vacate the order or judgment at issue and remand with directions to dismiss the case. E.g., Deakins, 484 U.S. at 200, 108 S.Ct. at 528-29. In fact, what appears to disturb the majority, Business Week, and the many amici who have filed briefs is an unrealistic fear that someone, someday, could employ the text of the district court’s mooted permanent injunction to delay someone else’s publication of sealed court documents — especially since, as the majority notes, litigants routinely seek protective orders.6 Thus, Business Week and the friends of the court want us to hold that this case either is not moot at all, or is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
What the majority, Business Week, and the amici fail to grasp, however, is that the mootness doctrine gives them the remedy they want, albeit without the visceral satisfaction of a First Amendment casebook entry. We would prevent any damage that the continued existence of the permanent injunction could cause by vacating it and remanding the ease with directions to dismiss. Such action, as the Supreme Court put it, “strips” the mooted orders of any precedential value. Deakins, 484 U.S. at 200, 108 S.Ct. at 528; see also, e.g., WJW-TV, Inc., 878 F.2d at 911-12. Thus, the concerns of the majority, Business Week, and the amici are not well founded.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. I also agree that, under the holding of Judge Merritt's opinion in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. 15951 80 L.Ed.2d 127 (1984), the late Judge Rubin abused his discretion by allowing the parties to determine whether particular documents merited seal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c); however, I point out that no one in this case has complained about this procedure. While Rule 26(c) does require that a motion be made for a protective order to issue, it is common practice for parties to stipulate to such orders. "Good cause” must, however, still be shown for the court to issue a stipulated order. See Patrick S. Kim, Note, Third Party Modification of Protective Orders Under Rule 26(c), 94 Mich.L.Rev. 854, 854 n. 4 (1995) (citing Arthur R. Miller, Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts, 105 Harv.L.Rev. 427 (1991) and Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir.1994)).

. This panel dealt with another discovery dispute in this litigation last year. In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (6th Cir.1995) (Brown, J.) (holding, inter alia, that documents prepared by BT and the Federal Reserve during an investigation of BT were subject to discovery).

. We also note that the magazine has reaped substantial publicity (and new prominence as a First Amendment champion) from the entire affair. E.g., James Traub, The Press v. the Courts, The New Yorker, Dec. 4, 1995, at 35.

. I believe that it is a close question whether Business Week can reasonably expect, with a demonstrable probability, to receive an ex parte order from a district judge forbidding it from publishing sealed discovery materials that it may obtain in the future.

. There appears to be some dispute about the effort Business Week made to contact the district court after the magazine received the initial temporary order. The district judge states in one of his orders that he was not contacted at all, despite his being "always available to provide a full hearing.” J.A. at 37. Business Week claims that it attempted to contact the judge, but failed. Br. of Appellant The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. at 10.

. The majority also expresses its concern that the district court simultaneously issued its permanent injunction and the order mooting it in a clever attempt to deprive this court of jurisdiction to review its actions. I do not believe this was the intent of the district court. Even if this was the court’s intent, however, it does not change the fact that this case, as presented to us, is moot.