## Facts

- Grove Fresh, an orange juice distributor, sued competing manufacturers alleging adulteration and misbranding of products sold as “100% orange juice,” along with related statutory and RICO theories.
- In the earlier action, the district court entered a protective order restricting disclosure of discovery materials designated confidential and permitting sealed filings.
- In a later related action, the district court ordered the entire court file sealed.
- Consumer plaintiffs in separate litigation moved to intervene to obtain access to protected and sealed materials for use in their own fraud and warranty case.
- A journalists’ coalition moved to intervene to challenge the sealing and confidentiality restrictions and to obtain public access to court records and certain discovery materials.
- The district court denied the consumers’ motion to intervene, citing lack of standing and lack of prejudice from denial.
- The district court allowed the journalists to intervene and acknowledged an access interest, but postponed access until the end of the litigation for administrative convenience.

## Issues

1. Whether nonparties may use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene in ongoing civil litigation for the limited purpose of challenging protective orders and sealing orders.
2. What standards govern access to (a) unfiled discovery subject to a protective order and (b) filed materials that qualify as judicial records.
3. Whether a district court may defer press access to judicial records until after the case ends based only on convenience.

## Decision

- The court held that Rule 24 intervention is the proper procedural method for third parties to seek modification of protective orders and to challenge sealing of court files.
- The court distinguished unfiled discovery (generally not subject to public access) from judicial records that affect adjudication (subject to a strong presumption of public access).
- The court held that continued secrecy must be justified by the party seeking confidentiality: good cause may support protection of discovery, while sealing judicial records requires stronger, specific justification and narrow tailoring.
- The court ruled that postponing access to judicial records for expedience is improper absent particularized findings sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring contemporaneous access.
- As to the consumer intervenors, the court accepted intervention as an available mechanism in principle but upheld denial of relief on the record presented, concluding they had not shown a sufficient legally protected interest or entitlement warranting intervention and modification.

## Legal Principles

- Nonparties may intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 for the limited purpose of challenging protective orders and orders sealing court records.
- There is no general public right of access to unfiled discovery exchanged between parties; such materials may remain protected upon a showing of good cause under Rule 26(c).
- Materials filed with the court that influence or support judicial decision-making are judicial records subject to a strong presumption of public access.
- The party seeking to maintain confidentiality bears the burden to justify continued protection or sealing when a third party seeks access; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
- Restrictions on access to judicial records, including delays in access, require specific findings showing that secrecy outweighs the presumption of openness and that any limitation is narrowly confined.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit recognized Rule 24 intervention as the appropriate vehicle for nonparties to contest confidentiality and sealing in civil cases, emphasized the distinction between unfiled discovery and judicial records, and required specific, compelling justification—beyond administrative convenience—to maintain or delay secrecy over court records.


Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994)