Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Incorporated, No. 09-2377 (7th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 11, 2009.

Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 09 2377 GOTHAM HOLDINGS, LP, et al., Plaintiffs Appellees, v. HEALTH GRADES, INC., Defendant Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 09 C 1843 James B. Zagel, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED AUGUST 28, 2009 DECIDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2009   ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and SYKES, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Gotham Holdings is a plaintiff, and Health Grades a defendant, in litigation pending in the Southern District of New York. Although there are multiple plaintiffs, we use one name to denote all. Health Grades con tends in the New York case that an arbitration award supports its view of the merits. It tendered the award and some of the documents exchanged in the arbitration. When Gotham Hold ings asked to see related documents, Health Grades balked, ob serving that the parties to the arbitration Health Grades and Hewitt Associates, LLC had pledged confidentiality. Gotham Holdings rejoined that, by relying on the award, Health Grades   This opinion is being issued in typescript. A printed copy will follow. No. 09 2377 Page 2 had waived confidentiality. When Health Grades refused to budge from its position, Gotham Holdings served a subpoena on Hewitt Associates and moved to enforce it in the Northern District of Illinois, where Hewitt Associates principal offices are located. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 c , 45. No one contends that the subpoena exceeds the bounds set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 b 1 , and the district court directed Hewitt Associates to produce the documents. Hewitt Associ ates is willing to hand them over. But the district court issued a stay pending Health Grades appeal. Appellate jurisdiction rests on the doctrine of Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 1918 . Because the discovery deadline in the New York suit is approaching, and the documents covered by the subpoena may lead to additional discovery requests in New York, we granted Gotham Holdings request to expedite the appeal. It has been submitted on the briefs to the motions panel that granted the request for expedited consideration. We affirm the district court s decision, for two reasons. First, ¶6 of the agreement between Health Grades and Hewitt Associates provides that materials from the arbitration may be disclosed in response to a subpoena. Second, even if the agree ment had purported to block disclosure, such a provision would be ineffectual. Contracts bind only the parties. No one can agree with someone else that a stranger s resort to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be cut off. We applied this principle in Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854 7th Cir. 1994 , to confidentiality agreements reached during litigation. That conclusion is equally applicable to confidentiality agreements that accompany arbitration. In deed, we have stated more broadly that a person s desire for confidentiality is not honored in litigation. Trade secrets, privi leges, and statutes or rules requiring confidentiality must be re spected, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 c 3 A iii , but litigants prefer ence for secrecy does not create a legal bar to disclosure. See Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 7th Cir. 2002 ; United States v. Foster, 564 F.3d 852 7th Cir. 2009 Easterbrook, C.J., in chambers . Health Grades and Hewitt Associates were entitled to agree that they would not voluntarily disclose any information related to the arbitration. See ITT Educational Services, Inc. v. Arce, 533 F.3d 342, 347 48 5th Cir. 2008 . Disclosure would be author ized only when a third party had a legal right of access. That s No. 09 2377 Page 3 what ¶6 of this agreement does: The parties promised to keep their mouths and files shut unless a subpoena required a turn over. Gotham Holdings is entitled to compulsory process to acquire documents from third parties. Health Grades does not argue that any privilege protects this material. The Supreme Court has expressed reluctance to create new privileges, see University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 1990 declin ing to create an academic deliberations privilege , and Health Grades does not attempt to show that an arbitration privilege would be appropriate under the Court s standards. According to Health Grades, access to the information would undermine the national policy favoring arbitration. There is no such policy. Arbitration agreements are optional and enforced just like other contracts. 9 U.S.C. §2. The Federal Arbitration Act eliminates hostility to private dispute resolu tion; it does not create a preference for that process. There is no federal policy favoring arbitration under a certain set of pro cedural rules; the federal policy is simply to ensure the enforce ability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbi trate. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Stanford University, 489 U.S. 468, 476 1989 . See also, e.g., Arthur Andersen, LLP v. Car lisle, 129 S. Ct. 1896, 1901 2009 federal policy is to place ar bitration agreements upon the same footing as other con tracts . People do not violate or undermine any federal pol icy if they litigate rather than arbitrate. Federal policy favors arbitration only in the sense that it favors contracts in general. The Federal Arbitration Act does not promote arbitration at the expense of strangers. Suppose Health Grades and Hewitt Associates had agreed between themselves that Gotham Hold ings would pay the arbitrators fees. That would make arbitra tion more attractive, but no one would think the agreement en forceable; third parties rights may be affected only with their consent. Just so here. Gotham Holdings has an entitlement to material information in the hands of Hewitt Associates. Noth ing that Health Grades and Hewitt Associates can do or say, separately or collectively, can affect that legal right. We con cluded in Teamsters Negotiating Committee v. Troha, 328 F.3d 325 7th Cir. 2003 , that parties to a labor arbitration may use sub poenas to obtain information from third parties. It would be weird to treat this as a one way street, so that parties to arbitra tion may obtain, but need not divulge, information relevant to the resolution of other disputes. No. 09 2377 Page 4 Hewitt Associates does not contend that the subpoena is unduly burdensome. No one contends that a recognized privi lege applies to these documents. So the subpoena was properly enforced. The stay is lifted, and the judgment is affirmed. The mandate will issue today.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.