Taylor v. Sturgell
Taylor sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Freedom of Information Act after the FAA denied his request to release the plans and specifications for the F-45. The FAA denied the request because it found that the plans were trade secrets not subject to FOIA disclosure. The district court dismissed Taylor's suit to compel disclosure, holding that Taylor’s claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata because Greg Herrick, a “close associate” of Taylor’s, had been his “virtual representative” in a prior FOIA case Herrick had brought unsuccessfully seeking the same documents.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Although a litigant is not ordinarily bound by the judgment in a prior suit to which he was not a party, there is an exception when the interests of the party in the second case were adequately represented by the earlier litigant, a situation known as "virtual representation." The court concluded that the test for virtual representation was satisfied because Herrick and Taylor had identical interests (i.e., they sought the same documents), adequate representation (the same lawyer represented both men in both law suits), a close relationship, and there was evidence that Taylor had brought the second law suit as a method of tactical maneouvering, hoping to get a "second bite at the apple."
Question Presented:
Can a party be precluded from bringing a claim, under a theory of “virtual representation,” and thereby denied the due process right to a day in court, when the party had no legal relationship with any party to the previous litigation and did not receive notice of that litigation?
