Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg

Decision Date02 May 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-7396,93-7396
Citation23 F.3d 772
Parties, 28 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1129, 22 Media L. Rep. 1641 John A. PANSY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. BOROUGH OF STROUDSBURG; Harold A. Bentzoni; Kathryn Mikels; John W. Osborne, II; William Reber; Mary Jean Knapik; Maryann West Kowalshyn; Richard F. Osswald; Carl R. Rogers Defendants/Appellees, v. OTTAWAY NEWSPAPERS, INC. t/a Pocono Record, Ronald F. Bouchard; Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, Intervenors/Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

George W. Westervelt, Jr. (argued), Stroudsburg, PA, for appellants Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., t/a Pocono Record and Ronald F. Bouchard.

James A. Swetz, Cramer, Swetz & McManus, Stroudsburg, PA, for appellee John A. Pansy.

Ralph A. Matergia (argued), Matergia & Dunn, Stroudsburg, PA, for appellees Borough of Stroudsburg, Harold A. Bentzoni, Kathryn Mikels, John W. Osborne, II, William Reber, Mary Jean Knapik, Maryann West Kowalyshyn, Richard F. Osswald, Carl R. Rogers.

Before: STAPLETON, COWEN and ALITO, Circuit Judges.


COWEN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal raises several questions of first impression in this court concerning the ability of intervenors to challenge orders of confidentiality pertaining to settlement agreements. These questions are extremely important in light of the widespread and increasing use by district courts of confidentiality orders to facilitate settlements, and the consequential sacrifice of public access to the information deemed confidential by such orders.

Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. ("Ottaway"), The Pocono Record ("the Record"), Ronald F. Bouchard and the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association (collectively, "the Newspapers") filed this action in the district court seeking to intervene in an action that had been settled between John A. Pansy and the Borough of Stroudsburg ("the Borough"). The Newspapers' purpose for intervening was to gain access to the Settlement Agreement which was entered into between Pansy and the Borough. The Newspapers argued that either the Agreement was a judicial record to which it had a right of access, or that the Order of Confidentiality which the court entered concerning the Agreement should be modified or vacated. The district court ruled that the Newspapers' motion for intervention was untimely. In the alternative, the district court held that the Agreement was not a judicial record, and therefore not accessible under the right of access doctrine. The district court denied the Newspapers' Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify the Order of Confidentiality. This appeal followed.

For the reasons stated below, we will reverse the order of the district court and direct that the Newspapers be permitted to intervene. We will remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.


The district court entered a final order denying the Motion to Intervene and the Motion to Amend, Vacate or Modify by the Newspapers. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. See Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust and Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 341 n. 2 (3d Cir.1986).

The standard of review for each issue raised in this appeal will be discussed in the analysis of the issue. Where this appeal raises a legal question, we exercise plenary review. Prisco v. Talty, 993 F.2d 21, 24 (3d Cir.1993).


In May, 1991, Pansy filed an action in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging that the Borough violated his civil rights. Prior to Pansy's filing that action, he had been Chief of the Borough's Police Department. While Chief, he was investigated and later arrested by agents of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Pansy was charged with offenses relating to the alleged improper handling of parking meter money. The Borough subsequently suspended him from the force and demoted him to patrolman. The demotion and suspension, in turn, led to Pansy's filing a civil rights action. Ultimately, Pansy was tried and acquitted of all criminal charges.

Pansy and the Borough agreed to settle the civil rights action and the Settlement Agreement was presented to and reviewed by the district court. The Newspapers were not involved with the settlement. On June 5, 1992, the district court entered an order indicating that it had reviewed the terms of settlement and directing that the case be considered dismissed with prejudice upon the expiration of sixty days or consummation of settlement. The order also stated that "the terms of settlement are confidential and the parties hereby are ordered and directed to abide by the order of confidentiality." App. at 54-55. The Settlement Agreement was never filed with the district court.

On October 22, 1992, the Record sent the Borough a request for information pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act ("the Right to Know Act"), Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 65, Secs. 66.1-.4. (1959 & Supp.1993). The request sought information and documents pertaining to the civil rights case, including the Settlement Agreement.

On November 25, 1992, the Borough sent a response to the Record which included some information concerning the monetary cost to the Borough in settling the case. However, the Borough refused to provide access to the Settlement Agreement itself, and related documents, ostensibly because the district court's June 5, 1992 Order of Confidentiality prohibited its divulgence. The Borough has continued to refuse to provide the Settlement Agreement to the Newspapers.

On December 23, 1992, the Newspapers filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, challenging the Borough's refusal to produce documents pursuant to Secs. 66.3 and 66.4 of the Right to Know Act. By order of that court, the state court litigation has been stayed pending the resolution of this case.

On December 23, 1992, the Newspapers also filed the motions in the district court which are the subject of this appeal. They filed a Motion to Intervene in the settled civil rights action between Pansy and the Borough, as well as a Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, or Modify the district court's June 5, 1992 Order. Specifically, the Newspapers sought the Settlement Agreement as a judicial record. In the alternative, they sought to modify or vacate the June 5, 1992 Order of Confidentiality so they could obtain the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act.

The district court concluded that the Motion to Intervene was untimely. Alternatively, the district court addressed the merits of the right of access claim. It found that even if intervention was proper, the Settlement Agreement was not a judicial record because it was never filed with the court and, therefore, the Newspapers had no right to obtain the Settlement Agreement under the right of access doctrine. The district court also denied the Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Modify the Order of Confidentiality.

1. Standing

The appellees have not challenged the Newspapers' standing in this appeal. Nevertheless, we are obliged to consider whether the Newspapers have standing to intervene in this action to either obtain the sought-after Settlement Agreement under the right of access doctrine, or to attack the Order of Confidentiality so that they may seek access to the document under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act. The requirements for an Article III case or controversy were stated in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982):

Art. III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, and that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

Id. at 472, 102 S.Ct. at 758 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

We have routinely found, as have other courts, that third parties have standing to challenge protective orders and confidentiality orders 1 in an effort to obtain access to information or judicial proceedings. E.g., Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir.1992); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 787 & n. 12 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1030, 109 S.Ct. 838, 102 L.Ed.2d 970 (1989); In re Alexander Grant & Co., Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 354 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 845 (3d Cir.1978); City of Hartford v. Chase, 733 F.Supp. 533, 534 (D.Conn.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 942 F.2d 130 (2d Cir.1991). The Newspapers may have standing notwithstanding the fact that "they assert rights that may belong to a broad portion of the public at large. So long as the 'injury in fact' alleged by each intervenor is 'a distinct and palpable injury to himself,' standing should not be denied 'even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.' " Cianfrani, 573 F.2d at 845 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)).

Moreover, to establish standing, it is not necessary for litigants to demonstrate that they will prevail on the merits of their claim. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. Therefore, in determining whether the Newspapers have standing, we need not determine that the Newspapers will ultimately obtain access to the sought-after Settlement Agreement. We need only find that the Order of Confidentiality being challenged presents an obstacle to the Newspapers' attempt to obtain access. The Newspapers have met the standing requirements in this case: they have shown that the putatively invalid Confidentiality Order which the district court entered interferes with their attempt to obtain access to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
963 cases
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • August 21, 2009 challenge confidentiality order because order gagged willing speaker from communicating with plaintiffs); Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 777 (3d Cir.1994) ("We have routinely found, as have other courts, that third parties have standing to challenge protective orders and c......
  • Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 26, 2021
    ...of public access and must demonstrate that "good cause" exists for the protection of the material at issue. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994). Good cause exists only when the moving party makes a particularized showing that disclosure will cause a "clearly def......
  • U.S. v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • July 28, 1998
    ...v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 161 (D.C.Cir.1997); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1995). But see Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 782 (3d Cir.1994). And, as indicated, the CJA documents are not directly related to the process of adjudication. The documents are n......
  • State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision, v. Rivero
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2021
    ...(E.D. Pa. 2019).107 Id . at 160 (citing Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson , 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) ; Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg , 23 F.3d 772, 787-91 (3d Cir. 1994) ).108 Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc. , 281 F.R.D. 507, 511 (D. Utah 2012) (stating Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
8 books & journal articles
  • National Security and Access, a Structural Perspective
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy No. 11-3, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...98 F.3d 1406, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (considering the “need for public access” to the information sought); Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 788 (3d Cir. 1994) (“If a settlement agreement involves public off‌icials or parties of a public nature, and involves matters of legitimate......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...1997), §4:142 Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499 (7th Cir. 2000), Form 11-05 Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg , 23 F.3d 772 (3rd Cir. 1994), §8:27 Paparelli v. Prudential Ins. Co ., 108 F.R.D. 727, 729-30 (D. Mass. 1985), §4:122 Paradigm Sales v. Weber Mktg. Sys. , 88......
  • Settlement Confidentiality: A 'Fracking' Disaster for Public Health and Safety
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-5, May 2015
    • May 1, 2015
    ...Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 40. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (the mechanics of dismissal). 41. See, e.g. , Pansy v. Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 788 (3d Cir. 1994) (stating that even where parties cannot meet the good cause requirement for a protective order, they may privately contrac......
  • Public Access to Judicial Proceedings and Records in Maine: Worth Protecting
    • United States
    • Maine State Bar Association Maine Bar Journal No. 27-4, September 2012
    • Invalid date 997-998 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 474 (9th Cir. I992)); see also Pansy v. Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 778 (3d Cir. I994) (holding that any party challenging a confidentiality order "meets the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2) that their cl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT