IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline plc
Reversed and remanded
Hennepin County District Court
File No. MC 03-15992
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Michael J. Vanselow, Deputy
Attorney General, Paul B. Civello, Assistant Attorney General, 1100
Michael A. Lindsay, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Suite 1500, 50 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498; and
Sara D. Schotland (pro hac vice), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (for respondent GlaxoSmithKline plc)
William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Randall, Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
1. The state may challenge a party’s confidentiality designation of documents produced pursuant to a civil investigatory demand under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 2(a) (2004), in accordance with an agreement and court order that provide for such challenges.
3. The district court does not initially determine, but rather reviews the state’s determinations, that disclosure is justified under Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2.
4. Attachments to pleadings filed with the district court are part of the court record for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 3.
5. The First Amendment does not protect the confidentiality of documents produced in response to a civil investigatory demand under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 2(a).
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of its motion disputing respondent’s claims of confidentiality as to certain documents produced by respondent pursuant to appellant’s civil investigatory demand. Because we find that the terms of a protective order and a confidentiality agreement provide appellant with the right to challenge such designations, because the documents are not protected from disclosure under Minn. Stat. § 13.39 (2004), and because First Amendment protections do not prevent disclosure of the documents, we reverse and remand.
May 30, 2003, appellant Minnesota Attorney General (the state) served a civil
investigatory demand (CID) on respondent GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 2(a) (2004). The
CID alleged that GSK “has combined or conspired . . . to refuse to supply
prescription drugs to Canadian pharmacies engaged in the sale of GSK’s drugs to
Before producing materials requested by the CID, GSK demanded that the parties enter into a confidentiality agreement (the agreement). According to the agreement, GSK had the right to initially designate documents as confidential, and the state could challenge such designation. Once the parties signed the agreement on August 4, 2003, GSK began producing documents. However, discovery disagreements arose, and in May 2004, the district court granted the state’s motion to compel GSK to comply with the CID. Subsequently, GSK designated some documents as privileged under the First Amendment. GSK offered to voluntarily produce 1,000 allegedly privileged documents if the state agreed to enter into a protective order. The parties negotiated a proposed order (the order), which the district court adopted on July 10, 2004. It largely mirrored the language of the agreement. Although GSK voluntarily produced numerous documents, certain others were in dispute. After an in camera review of 120 documents, the district court required GSK to produce only a small portion of the disputed documents.
In September 2004, the state moved the district court to declare that 44 documents stamped as “confidential” by GSK were not confidential. GSK opposed the motion, arguing that the documents were confidential under the agreement and the order, were nonpublic investigative data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and contained communications protected by the First Amendment. After a hearing on the state’s motion, the state delivered to the district court a copy of the complaint in an antitrust action the state intended to file in Ramsey County District Court against GSK. The complaint refers to, quotes, and attaches many of the documents contested at the motion hearing. On October 13, 2004, the district court denied the state’s motion to declare that such documents were not confidential.
state took two routes to appeal the October 13 order. First, the state filed a petition for discretionary
review, which this court denied on December 7, 2004. Second, the state filed an appeal as of
right, which this court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction on
December 21, 2004. The Minnesota Supreme
Court granted further review of both orders.
Meanwhile, the state finished its investigation of GSK and filed an antitrust
complaint in Ramsey County District Court.
On July 14, 2005, the supreme court reversed this court’s dismissal of
the state’s appeal as of right and remanded.
In re GlaxoSmithKline plc, 699
N.W.2d 749 (
1. Do the agreement and the order permit the state to challenge GSK’s confidentiality designations?
2. Does the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act prohibit the state from disclosing the documents received from GSK?
3. Is there a First Amendment right that protects the confidentiality of the documents?
the factual basis of the confidentiality of any specific document is not before
us, this appeal addresses legal, not factual, disputes. “A de
novo standard of review is used to determine whether the district court
erred in its application of the law.” Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies,
Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (
first issue is whether the district court correctly interpreted the agreement
and the order as precluding the state’s challenge to the GSK confidentiality
designation. “There is a presumption in
favor of a common-law right of access to civil court records.” State
ex rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 606 N.W.2d 676, 686 (
Here, the district court found that both the agreement and the order contained a commitment by the state to protect as confidential all information produced. The agreement and the order provide that GSK can designate as confidential any trade secret under Minn. Stat. § 13.37, subd. 1(b) (2002), or any document that could be the subject of a protective order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03. However, the agreement and the order further state that if GSK designates a document as confidential, the state can object to such designation by giving GSK ten days’ notice, at which time GSK can file a motion to prevent disclosure.
GSK produced more than 1,000 allegedly privileged documents pursuant to the terms of the agreement and order. The state agreed to respect and preserve the confidentiality of all documents whose designation it did not challenge. As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated, “The district court’s conclusion that the state’s request was precluded by the Protective Order or the Confidentiality Agreement does not consider that both documents specifically authorized the state to object to GSK’s confidentiality designations and to seek district court review.” In re GlaxoSmithKline plc, 699 N.W.2d at 755-56 n.3. While this statement was not essential to the supreme court’s decision, we find it persuasive that its interpretation of the discovery agreements mirrors our own.
GSK argues in the alternative that the state implicitly waived the right to contest the confidentiality of the documents, notwithstanding the plain language of the agreement and the order. Generally, a party who cooperates with discovery because it has received assurances that information would be kept secret has a reliance interest that the court will protect.
Judicial estoppel prevents a party that has taken one position in litigating a particular set of facts from later reversing its position when it is to its advantage to do so. It is intended to protect the courts from being manipulated by chameleonic litigants who seek to prevail, twice, on opposite theories.
Bauer v. Blackduck Ambulance Ass’n, 614 N.W.2d 747, 749 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted).
Bauer, this court reasoned that when
an employee held herself out as an employee by accepting workers’ compensation
benefits, she could not later rescind her employee status to also sue in tort.
We conclude that the state is not estopped from challenging the confidentiality designations made by GSK. The state made a discrete challenge to a select body of documents, as provided under the terms of both the agreement and the order. The district court erred as a matter of law by declaring that the state had no right to challenge the designation.
second issue is whether the district court properly interpreted the provisions
of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. §§
13.01-.90 (2004). The MGDPA is generally a law of access. It “establishes a presumption that government
data are public and are accessible by the public.”
argues that the MGDPA prohibits the release of active investigative data in
pending civil actions. See Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 3. At the outset, we note that this argument is
difficult to press because courts have found that the legislature enacted
section 13.39 “to prevent government agencies from being at a continual
disadvantage in litigation by having to prematurely disclose their
investigative work product to opposing parties or the public.” Star
MGDPA provides that “data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions,
or statewide systems as part of an active investigation undertaken for the
purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action, or
which are retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action, are
classified as protected nonpublic data.”
addition to the accessibility basis for disclosure, the state points out that
the law allows it (the state) to disclose protected nonpublic data if it (the
state) determines that any of three factors is applicable. See
Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2. The state
argues that the district court erred by not recognizing the state’s discretion
and in not considering the factors. See Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2. The factors are “aid the law enforcement
process, promote public health or safety or dispel widespread rumor or
We conclude the district court erred when it determined that the documents are “protected nonpublic data” under Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2, and when it determined that the state lacked the authority to make the documents public, if the conditions in subdivision 2 were met.
district court applied subdivision 3 to bar the state’s motion for
disclosure. Among other provisions, that
subdivision states that active civil investigative data which are nonpublic may
become public if the data are “made part of a court record.”
court must determine whether the documents constitute court records because
they are exhibits to pleadings.
“Generally, private documents generated during discovery that are not
filed with the court are not considered ‘judicial records.’” Star
Tribune, 659 N.W.2d at 296. The
common-law presumption of access only extends to documents that have been filed
with the court.
The final issue is whether the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that the First Amendment protected the documents in question from disclosure. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03 allows a party to move, with good cause, for a protective order. This First Amendment claim by GSK was brought under this rule.
A. Petitioning Activity
right to petition one’s government is a protected right under the First
Amendment. “It is neither unusual nor illegal for people
to seek action on laws in the hope that they may bring about an advantage to
themselves and a disadvantage to their competitors.” E. R.R.
Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365
GSK asserts that documents that were prepared as part of exercising its petitioning
rights are privileged from disclosure by the First Amendment. GSK contends that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine establishes that concerted petitioning
activity is not an antitrust violation. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington,
In the federal courts, this claim of protection against disclosure has been rejected. N. C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 666 F.2d 50, 53 (4th Cir. 1981) (finding that “[t]here is no authority for fitting the Noerr-Pennington doctrine into the ‘privilege’ exception” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26); see Associated Container Transp. (Austl.) Ltd. v. United States, 705 F.2d 53, 59 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding that a company could not invoke Noerr-Pennington doctrine as a basis for withholding materials sought through a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice). Thus, Noerr-Pennington does not provide a discovery privilege. We conclude that it also does not prevent the disclosure of documents GSK supplied related to contacts with governmental entities absent a clear showing that the standard for protection of associational activity is met. The district court erred as a matter of law in finding that a petitioning privilege prevented disclosure of the documents.
B. Associational Activity
also asserts that a privilege based on its First Amendment associational
privacy rights protects the documents from disclosure. “Constitutional freedom of association
protects the right of an individual to associate with others for the purpose of
expressing and advancing ideas and beliefs.”
Metro. Rehab. Servs., Inc. v.
Westberg, 386 N.W.2d 698, 700 (
overarching purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the expression of
ideas, not elevate privacy to handicap public expression. St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Sch., 332 N.W.2d 1, 7 (
asserts that disclosing the documents would have a chilling effect on its
ability to freely associate. Associational
privacy has been elevated over disclosure when there is a group that has been
an object of harsh retaliation and disclosure is not just embarrassing, but threatening
to the personal safety, if not very survival, of its members. See
There is no evidence on the record before us to substantiate the claim that the proposed public disclosure would interfere with the associational rights of GSK or subject GSK and the firms with which it may be associated to discrimination or retaliation. The bald assertion that interference will occur is not adequate. We determine that the district court abused its discretion in prohibiting disclosure on this ground.
GSK also asserts that the documents are privileged to protect the privacy interests of third parties. A number of the documents that GSK produced to the state were created by PhRMA, for members of its association. However, for the same reasons this court declines to find such a privilege for GSK, we also decline to find one for PhRMA. The record is devoid of any evidentiary support for such a position.
The district court did not determine specifically which documents were protected under either the alleged petitioning or associational privileges. Neither party cites any authority for the proposition that documents and communications made under the auspices of, or as a result of, exercising a First Amendment right are confidential and protected from disclosure. The district court erred as a matter of law by creating a blanket privilege under the First Amendment.
D E C I S I O N
We conclude that the state had the right to challenge GSK’s confidentiality designations under the plain language of both the agreement and the order. Moreover, nothing in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act precludes disclosure in this case of otherwise nonconfidential documents. Finally, the First Amendment does not prevent disclosure of the documents at issue. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a determination of which documents may be released pursuant to the agreement and order, the only surviving basis for nondisclosure.
Reversed and remanded.
 It does not appear that the notice/motion procedure was followed in this dispute. However, GSK has not raised this issue and, under the circumstances, it does not appear GSK was prejudiced by the state’s taking the initiative to file the motion.
 We also note that application of the judicial-estoppel
doctrine is not expressly recognized in
 In discussing this issue, we only consider whether the MGDPA protects government data from disclosure as presented in this case. We do not consider the relationship between the provisions of the MGDPA and other bases for confidentiality, including claims of trade secrets and confidentiality agreements.
 The Fourteenth Amendment makes First Amendment
protections applicable against the states.
Bloom v. O’Brien, 841 F. Supp.
277, 279 (D. Minn. 1993) (citing Douglas
v. City of Jeannette, 319
 “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.”
 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of American (PhRMA) is an amicus curiae in this matter.