Standing as a Gatekeeper: Fifth Circuit Restricts Post-Judgment Intervention for Private Unsealing Requests

1. Introduction

In Yellow Rock, L.L.C. v. Axiall Corp., No. 24-30540 (5th Cir. June 17, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a recurring tension between the public’s right of access to judicial records and Article III standing doctrine. More than a year after a toxic-tort case had been settled and dismissed with prejudice, non-party Yellow Rock, L.L.C. appeared, seeking to unseal portions of the record for use against Westlake (successor to Axiall) in separate Louisiana state litigation. The district court required Yellow Rock first to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, denied intervention mainly for lack of standing, and struck the unsealing motion from the docket.

On appeal, Yellow Rock challenged three rulings:

• the denial of its intervention motion,
• the refusal to unseal the documents, and
• the striking of its unsealing motion from the record.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention for want of standing, declined to reach the merits of sealing, but modified the district court’s order to leave the unsealing motion on file.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, in a per curiam opinion, held:

1. No Standing to Intervene: Yellow Rock’s desire to obtain documents for use in private litigation did not constitute an injury-in-fact; thus it lacked Article III standing.
2. No Need to Reach Sealing Merits: Absent standing, the Court could not address whether the district court should have unsealed the records.
3. Improper Striking: While intervention was properly denied, striking the unsealing motion was unnecessary; the opinion modifies the judgment to keep the filing on the docket.
4. Appeal Dismissed: With no standing, the remainder of the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Fifth Circuit anchored its reasoning in three principal authorities:

• Deus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 1994) – A non-party sought to intervene and unseal records for use in separate litigation. The court denied intervention, holding that a “desire to intervene” is not a justiciable controversy absent an underlying right. Importantly, it emphasized that alternative discovery devices in the movant’s own lawsuit defeated standing.
• United States ex rel. Hernandez v. Team Finance, LLC, 80 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023) – After a False Claims Act settlement, a health-care economist moved to unseal records, asserting the public’s right of access for academic study. The court found standing because the movant alleged an individualized informational injury tied to a public -interest claim, not merely private litigation needs.
• Rotstain v. Mendez, 986 F.3d 931 (5th Cir. 2021) – Provides the rule that, when a party lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss without reaching the merits.

By juxtaposing Deus and Hernandez, the panel drew a dispositive distinction: the motive behind the request. Yellow Rock’s avowed purpose was to gain litigation leverage, placing it squarely within Deus. Unlike the academic in Hernandez, Yellow Rock failed to allege a public-access injury personal to itself.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The opinion unfolds in three analytical layers:

1. Article III Standing Precedes Rule 24 Analysis
   Standing is “an essential and unchanging” constitutional prerequisite (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)). Rule 24 cannot enlarge federal jurisdiction; therefore the court first asked whether Yellow Rock demonstrated:
   • an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized,
   • causation, and
   • redressability by the requested relief.
   Yellow Rock’s “desire” for sealed discovery to aid its state case was deemed too speculative and self-interested to satisfy injury-in-fact.
2. Public Right of Access Requires a Personalized Informational Injury
   Citing Hernandez, the panel explained that a non-party can establish standing where it shows deprivation of information it is uniquely positioned to disseminate for public benefit. Yellow Rock offered no such individualized informational stake; its cursory invocation of “public interest” was labeled “perfunctory.”
3. Striking the Motion Was Unwarranted
   While the district court could deny relief, striking the filing erased part of the judicial record without necessity. The appellate court modified the judgment so that the document remains publicly visible, underscoring transparency even when substantive relief is denied.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The case clarifies—perhaps tightens—the Fifth Circuit standard for post-judgment intervention by non-parties who seek to unseal court records:

• Private-Litigation Motives Are Insufficient – Litigants fishing for free discovery cannot bypass ordinary discovery rules by invoking public-access rhetoric.
• Distinct from Hernandez – The decision elaborates a functional test: is the unsealing request genuinely public-regarding or predominantly private?
• District-Court Procedure – Trial courts within the circuit can now confidently require formal intervention motions and Article III standing demonstrations before entertaining unsealing requests after dismissal.
• Discovery Strategy – Parties suing the same defendant elsewhere must resort to their own discovery processes, not collateral unsealing motions, to obtain documents.
• Docket Integrity – The modification regarding the strike order cautions district courts against over-zealous docket pruning, thereby promoting transparency in collateral proceedings.

Because the Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the ruling will bind district courts in those states and may influence sister circuits grappling with the scope of informational injuries.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article III Standing – A constitutional rule requiring that a person asking a federal court for relief must show a real, personal stake—an actual injury caused by the defendant that the court can fix.
• Permissive Intervention (Rule 24(b)) – A procedural tool allowing non-parties to join a lawsuit if they have a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact; but it is discretionary and subject to standing limits.
• Unsealing Court Records – Most filings are public, but parties may seal sensitive material with court approval. A non-party can ask to unseal by asserting the “common-law right of access” or First-Amendment grounds.
• Injury-in-Fact vs. Generalized Grievance – The former is a concrete, personal harm; the latter is a broad concern shared by the public at large, which, without more, does not confer standing.
• Striking from the Record – A drastic remedy removing a filing from the docket, ordinarily reserved for scandalous or irrelevant material; not automatically triggered by a lack-of-standing ruling.

5. Conclusion

Yellow Rock v. Axiall fortifies a gatekeeping principle: non-parties cannot access settled litigation records for purely private purposes absent a personalized informational injury that implicates the public’s right of access. The ruling harmonizes Deus and Hernandez, signaling that motive and injury—not mere invocation of openness—drive standing analysis. While the Fifth Circuit preserved docket transparency by undoing an unnecessary strike order, it closed the door on litigants seeking to convert sealed federal filings into shortcuts for state-court discovery. Future unsealing motions must either demonstrate authentic public-interest harms or proceed through ordinary discovery channels, preserving both constitutional boundaries and judicial economy.