Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
John Doe 7, et al. v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 19-11494 · judgment July 16, 2020
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to grant protective orders, for good cause shown, regarding information produced by a litigant or third party. Such orders may be granted where disclosure of that information could cause harm, e.g., for confidential business information such as trade secrets. Here, the district court granted a protective order regarding the plaintiffs’ identities and private information, to protect them from threats of violence. Although the defendants initially stipulated to this protection, on the eve of summary judgment, they moved to lift the protections so they could disclose plaintiffs’ names and other identifying information to the public. The district court granted their motion to remove the protection, holding that plaintiffs bore, but did not sustain, the burden of proving the protections remained necessary. Deepening a three-way circuit conflict, the Eleventh Circuit held that although movants ordinarily bear the burden to show good cause when they seek to modify a protective order, the opposite rule applies when the order was stipulated by the parties. In that circumstance, the court held, the party opposing modification must show good cause to continue the protection. The question presented is: Does a party seeking to modify a stipulated Rule 26(c) protective order bear the burden of showing good cause for the modification?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Kevin K. Russell
Goldstein and Russell, P.C.
For respondent
Michael Lawrence Cioffi
Blank Rome
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
4 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Oct 04 2021Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Partners in Justice International, et al. GRANTED.
- Oct 04 2021Petition DENIED.
- Aug 25 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Aug 24 2021Reply of petitioners John Doe 7, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 06 2021Brief of respondent Chiquita Brands International, Inc. in opposition filed.
- Jul 08 2021Brief amicus curiae of National Crime Victim Law Institute filed.
- Jul 08 2021Brief amici curiae of Seth Katsuya Endo, Helen Hershkoff, Jennifer A. Kreder, David I. Levine, Noah Novogrodsky, Portia Pedro, Beth Stephens, Susan Sturm filed.
- Jul 08 2021Brief amici curiae of Human Rights Organizations filed.
- Jul 08 2021Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Partners in Justice International, et al.
- Jun 22 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 9, 2021.
- Jun 17 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 8, 2021 to August 9, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 08 2021Response Requested. (Due July 8, 2021)
- Jun 02 2021Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Center for Justice and filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 01 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
- May 24 2021Waiver of right of respondent Chiquita Brands International, Inc. to respond filed.
- May 21 2021Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John Doe 7, et al.
- May 13 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 16, 2021)