Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case involving res judicata. It held that a "virtually represented" non-party cannot be bound by a judgment.[1]
Greg Herrick was seeking to restore a vintage 1930s airplane. He filed an FOIA request for technical documents with the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA said that the documents were trade secrets and denied his request, and the district court and the appellate court denied his appeal.[2] During the appeals process, Herrick discovered a letter that supported his case, but could not introduce it at it had not been plead in the district court.
Later, Brent Taylor, a friend of Herrick with no participation in the previous case, filed an FOIA request for the same documents through the same lawyer. He was denied, but in his appeal sought to introduce the newly-discovered letter. The district and appellate courts held that Taylor was precluded from litigating the issue because he had been "virtually represented" in the prior case.[3] Because Taylor and Herrick were seeking the same documents and were in fact trying to restore the same airplane, reasoned the lower courts, they were attempting to relitigate the issue.
Associate JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, overturning the decision below by the D.C. Circuit.[3] The holding means that the only form of virtual representation in Federal courts is the class action.[4]
