TAYLOR v. STURGELL

Legal Principle at Issue

Can a person who was not a party to a prior lawsuit be bound by the judgment in that lawsuit simply because they are closely associated with a party who was?

Action

Vacated and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Greg Herrick, an antique aircraft enthusiast seeking to restore a vintage airplane manufactured by the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the Federal Aviation Administration for copies of technical documents related to the vintage airplane. The FAA denied his request based on FOIA’s exemption for trade secrets. Herrick took an administrative appeal, but when respondent objected to releasing the documents, the FAA adhered to its original decision. Herrick then filed an unsuccessful FOIA lawsuit to secure the documents. 

Less than a month after that suit was resolved, petitioner Taylor, Herrick’s friend and an antique aircraft enthusiast himself, made a FOIA request for the same documents Herrick had unsuccessfully sued to obtain. When the FAA failed to respond, Taylor filed suit in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Holding the suit barred by claim preclusion, the District Court granted summary judgment to the FAA and the company. The court acknowledged that Taylor was not a party to Herrick’s suit, but held that a nonparty may be bound by a judgment if she was “virtually represented” by a party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed, announcing a five-factor test for “virtual representation.” The first two factors of the D. C. Circuit’s test — “identity of interests” and “adequate representation” — are necessary but not sufficient for virtual representation. In addition, at least one of three other factors must be established: “a close relationship between the present party and his putative representative,” “substantial participation by the present party in the first case,” or “tactical maneuvering on the part of the present party to avoid preclusion by the prior judgment.” 

The D. C. Circuit acknowledged the absence of any indication that Taylor participated in, or even had notice of, Herrick’s suit. It nonetheless found the “identity of interests,” “adequate representation,” and “close relationship” factors satisfied because the two men sought release of the same documents, were “close associates,” had discussed working together to restore Herrick’s plane, and had used the same lawyer to pursue their suits. Because these conditions sufficed to establish virtual representation, the court left open the question whether Taylor had engaged in tactical maneuvering to avoid preclusion.