Lexplug logoLexplug

Phillips v. General Motors Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
307 F.3d 1206 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a discovery document is filed with a court under a valid protective order in connection with a nondispositive motion, the usual common law presumption of public access is rebutted. The party seeking disclosure must then present compelling reasons why the information should be released.


Facts:

  • The Byrd family, represented by Alvin K. Phillips, sued General Motors Corporation (GM) alleging a defect in a GM C/K pickup truck's gas tank.
  • During the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' expert indicated that information regarding GM's prior settlements in similar cases involving post-collision fuel-fed fires would be important to his analysis.
  • Plaintiffs sought to compel GM to produce this settlement information.
  • GM had previously settled numerous similar cases under confidentiality agreements, which obligated the parties to keep the terms private.
  • Pursuant to a court order, GM produced the total number and aggregate dollar amount of its previous settlements for these specific claims.
  • The underlying lawsuit between the Byrd family and GM ultimately settled.
  • After the case settled, the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper, sought access to the confidential settlement information GM had produced during discovery.

Procedural Posture:

  • Alvin K. Phillips sued General Motors Corporation (GM) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
  • The parties stipulated to a 'share' protective order governing discovery.
  • The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel GM to produce information on prior settlements in similar cases.
  • A magistrate judge granted the motion in part, ordering GM to produce the information under the existing protective order, subject to final review by the district judge.
  • Plaintiffs filed a discovery-sanctions motion against GM, attaching the sealed settlement information as Exhibit 8.
  • The underlying case settled and the district court dismissed the action.
  • After dismissal, the Los Angeles Times successfully moved to intervene and requested the court unseal Exhibit 8.
  • The district court granted the Los Angeles Times' motion and ordered the release of the settlement information.
  • General Motors Corporation, as appellant, appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Phillips and the Los Angeles Times were the appellees.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the common law right of public access to judicial records overcome a protective order when the sealed discovery material is attached to a nondispositive motion?


Opinions:

Majority - Brewster, Senior District Judge

No, the common law right of public access does not automatically overcome a protective order in this circumstance. When a party attaches a sealed discovery document to a nondispositive motion, the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted. The court first held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the protective order. The district court mistakenly believed its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) was limited to protecting only 'trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.' The appellate court clarified that Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on trial courts to issue protective orders for 'good cause' to protect a party from a wide range of harms, including annoyance or embarrassment, and is not limited to the specific categories listed in subsection (c)(7). The court remanded for the district court to conduct a proper 'good cause' analysis. Second, the court established the standard for accessing sealed documents. It held that if the protective order is found to be valid on remand, the common law right of access is rebutted because the document was attached to a nondispositive discovery-sanctions motion. To apply the strong presumption of access in such cases would 'undermine, and possibly eviscerate' the court's power to manage discovery confidentially. Therefore, the burden shifts to the party seeking access, the Los Angeles Times, to provide 'sufficiently compelling reasons' for the court to release the sealed information.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the framework for analyzing public access to court-filed discovery materials in the Ninth Circuit, creating a crucial distinction between dispositive and nondispositive motions. By holding that the presumption of access is rebutted for sealed documents attached to nondispositive motions, the court strengthens the power of protective orders and provides greater certainty to litigants that sensitive information produced in discovery will remain confidential. This decision encourages candid discovery by reducing the fear that confidential data, such as settlement amounts or trade secrets, will become public merely by being referenced in a routine procedural motion. It balances the public's interest in transparency with the parties' need for confidentiality during the pre-trial phase of litigation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Phillips v. General Motors Corporation (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"