Broad Order Limiting Use of Discovered Information Vacated

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court order limiting use by counsel of information and documents obtained in discovery of a class action.

Counsel

Appellant Columbia Legal Services (“Columbia”) represented farmworkers in a now-settled class action against Stemilt AG Services, LLC (“Stemilt”). Columbia now appeals in its own name to challenge a broad protective order entered by the district court.

The district court

The district court wrote with some understatement, “Discovery in this case ha[s] proven quite litigious, with the parties unable or unwilling to resolve disputes independently and without judicial intervention.”

Standing

Persons or entities seeking appellate review must satisfy the standing requirements of Article III. Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. 658, 662 (2019). Appellants must establish “(1) a concrete and particularized injury, that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. Generally, only parties at the time judgment was entered have standing to appeal. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir. 1981).

However, there is an exception for nonparty attorneys who have been “aggrieved” by an order or judgment of the district court. 

Need

A Columbia attorney states in a sworn declaration that the district court’s order has had a “tremendous chilling effect” on Columbia’s advocacy in other matters. The attorney states that Columbia regularly uses non-confidential information obtained through discovery in its impact litigation, legislative advocacy, and community education efforts. Indeed, Columbia had already used Stemilt’s anonymized payroll data in outside litigation before the entry of the district court’s order. The attorney states that Columbia has identified several “highly relevant” documents that it would use in other advocacy efforts if it were permitted to do so. Under the challenged order, Columbia can seek leave from the court only “in limited circumstances.” Columbia contends that the order severely and improperly limits its use of information discovered in the class action.

Protective order vacated

Here, the district court entered a broad and undifferentiated order prohibiting Columbia from using any information and documents obtained in discovery in this case without prior approval from the district court. The order included only a brief explanation and no finding of good cause to support this prohibition. The district court did not identify any prejudice or particularized harm that would result from Columbia’s use of or public access to particular documents or information, and it did not balance the relevant interests against any potential harm. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in thus restricting Columbia’s use of information and documents obtained in this litigation.

Conclusion

We vacate the portion of the district court’s order requiring Columbia to seek court leave before using in other advocacy information obtained in discovery in the class action. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(Mike Frisch)