Taylor v. Sturgell

Brief Fact Summary.

Taylor brought an action seeking certain documents or records from the FAA. Taylor’s close associate, Herrick, had filed a prior action against the FAA, seeking the same documents or records.  Taylor’s lawyer had also represented Herrick; Herrick apparently gave Taylor documents that he obtained during discovery in his prior lawsuit.  The District of Columbia Circuit court held that Taylor’s suit was precluded because Herrick, in his prior litigation, had served as Taylor’s “virtual representative.”

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

For purposes of preclusion of a party, another party’s representation is adequate only if the interests of the nonparty and her representatives are aligned, and if the other party understood that she was representing the party to be precluded or the court took care to protect that party’s interests. Notice of the original suit to those to be precluded may also be required.

Facts.

Taylor brought an action against the FAA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking certain documents or records from the FAA. Taylor was represented by the same lawyer who had represented his close associate, Herrick, in a prior litigation against the FAA. Herrick’s lawsuit sought the same documents or records that Taylor was seeking from the FAA.  Taylor apparently received documents that were obtained during discovery in Herrick’s lawsuit against the FAA from Herrick. Judgment was entered against Herrick in his action against the FAA. The District of Columbia Circuit court held that Taylor’s suit was precluded because Herrick, in his prior litigation, had served as Taylor’s “virtual representative.”

Issue.

Did a “virtual representation” exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion apply to bar Taylor’s lawsuit against the FAA?

Held.

No.  A “virtual representation” exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion did not apply to bar Taylor’s lawsuit against the FAA.

Discussion.

The Court rejected a broad or expansive doctrine of “virtual representation,” and also rejected a diffuse balancing approach. None of the recognized exceptions to nonparty preclusion applied in this case, and the Court rejected application of a broad or expansive “virtual representation” exception. Here, there was no indication that Herrick intended or knew he was representing Taylor in the prior litigation against the FAA, or that the court took care to protect Taylor’s interests.