Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Liggett Group, Inc., and Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co. (collectively “Liggett”) appeal an order of the district court modifying an earlier protective order covering discovery materials produced by Liggett. Request for the modification came from a group of public health organizations represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group (“Public Citizen”). 1 Liggett contends that Public Citizen lacked standing to request modification, both because it failed to obtain status as an intervening party under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because it had no substantive right of access to the materials in question, and that it failed to establish adequate circumstances justifying the modification. We affirm in part but modify the district court’s order.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Initial Proceedings

On August 26, 1980, Joseph C. Palmer died of lung cancer after having smoked cigarettes made by Liggett for a number of years. Three years later, Palmer’s wife and mother filed a diversity action against Liggett in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Palm-ers asserted various state law claims against Liggett based on Liggett’s allegedly inadequate warnings about the health risks of smoking.

Discovery began in 1984 and, during the course of discovery, three protective orders were entered by the district court. The first two orders, dated January 17, 1984, and January 25, 1985, pertained to the confidentiality of the plaintiffs’ medical records. They are not at issue here. It is the third protective order, providing broad protection for documents produced by Lig-gett, which is the center of the current controversy.

This protective order grew out of plaintiffs’ January 22, 1985 deposition subpoena directed to the custodian of documents at Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“Little”). Little is a private consulting firm that performed research work for Liggett in the early 1950’s. Pursuant to the subpoena and by agreement of the parties, plaintiffs’ counsel were permitted to inspect eighteen boxes of doc *777 uments at Little’s offices on January 30-31, 1985. Counsel began copying documents on February 1, 1985. On February 5, Liggett moved for a protective order under Rule 26(c) barring any nonlitigatory use of the Little documents and of all future discovery in the action. In support of its request, Liggett asserted that plaintiffs’ discovery requests encompassed massive numbers of documents and that it would be “physically impossible for [Liggett] to designate individually each document containing confidential or secret information.”

The plaintiffs opposed the protective order on the ground, among others, that Lig-gett had waived its claims to confidentiality by previously allowing counsel to review and copy the Little documents. The district court granted Liggett’s motion and signed the protective order on February 25, 1985.

The order as approved had two components. The first is a blanket provision mandating that “[a]ll information produced or exchanged in the course of this civil action or any appeal arising therefrom ... shall be used solely for purposes of this case.” The second provides heightened protection for any materials explicitly designated by a party as “confidential.” With regard to both categories of materials, the protective order provides that “[wjithin forty-five days after the final adjudication or settlement of all claims in this case, counsel for the parties either shall return all documents produced, if so requested by the producing party, or shall destroy all such documents. All copies of all documents, and all information and notes derived from them, also shall be destroyed.”

Subject to the restrictions of the protective order, plaintiffs’ counsel copied approximately 1200 documents (one box full) from the eighteen boxes of Little documents to which the plaintiffs had access. None of these documents were ever designated by Liggett as confidential. The documents have remained in the possession of plaintiffs’ counsel since that time.

On June 7, 1985, the Wall Street Journal wrote a letter to the district court expressing interest in seeing the Little documents and seeking advice on how best to proceed in obtaining a modification of the protective order. One week later, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a “Notice of Intent to Disseminate [the Little] Documents” to the Wall Street Journal. In support of their proposed action, plaintiffs cited Liggett’s failure to designate any documents as confidential and to articulate any reason why release of the documents would harm Lig-gett. Plaintiffs also pointed out that many of the documents had been marked as exhibits for trial and thus would be made public eventually anyway. Liggett opposed the plaintiffs’ proposed action, arguing that the protective order was still in full force, and, on June 28, 1985, filed its own “Motion to Require Compliance With Protective Order.”

In response, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification or modification of the February 25 protective order. Plaintiffs argued that the order should be read as applying only to documents designated as confidential, because otherwise it would extend protection to information whether or not it qualified as confidential under the federal rules. At this point, the Wall Street Journal also sought leave to intervene in the action and filed its own request for clarification or modification. On July 16, 1985, the district court refused to modify the protective order and allowed Liggett’s motion to compel compliance. It noted: “The dissemination of this material will not aid in the fair trial of this case. The trial is public and the Wall Street Journal is, of course, able to attend the trial.” Plaintiffs’ and the Wall Street Journal’s motions were denied.

One week later, the Wall Street Journal moved for reconsideration of the district court order. The Journal’s motion was based primarily on the decision in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 106 F.R.D. 573 (D.N.J. 1985), handed down the day after the order to compel compliance was issued in this case. Like the Palmers’ case, Cipol-lone involved state law claims that inadequate warnings by Liggett had caused the death of a Liggett cigarette smoker. In the cited decision in Cipollone, Judge Saro- *778 kin had substantially modified a protective order, previously approved by a magistrate, which was “identical” to the February 25, 1985 protective order in this case. Id. at 579. Judge Sarokin found that the provision extending blanket protection to documents not designated as confidential “overstep[ped] the bounds permitted by Rule 26(c)” and he accordingly modified the order to extend only to confidential information. Id. at 584. Although acknowledging that its analysis diverged from Judge Sarokin’s, the district court in this case denied the motion to reconsider. It noted: “Motion denied, without prejudice to renew. The Sarokin opinion is now under appeal. This motion should be renewed following a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.” 2

In April of 1986, Liggett moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that they were preempted under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. The district court denied the motion but certified the question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), to this court, which reversed. Palmer v. Liggett Group, Inc., 825 F.2d 620 (1st Cir.1987). We held that in passing the Act, Congress had struck a “carefully drawn balance between the purposes of warning the public of the hazards of cigarette smoking and protecting the interests of the national economy” and that permitting the interposition of state actions into the area would excessively disrupt the congressional scheme. Id. at 626 (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181, 187 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043, 107 S.Ct. 907, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987)). The Palmers’ state law claims were thus preempted.

In light of our opinion, Liggett moved in the district court to have the Palmers’ complaint dismissed and judgment entered for Liggett. Over the plaintiffs’ objections, the district court granted the motion and entered judgment for Liggett on October 6, 1987. No appeal was taken.

B. Public Citizen’s Motion for Access to Discovery Materials

On December 28, 1987, Public Citizen filed two motions in district court. In its first motion, Public Citizen sought interlocutory relief: an order mandating that the parties maintain and not destroy or return discovery materials in the Palmer case pending resolution of its second motion. This first motion was allowed by the district court the same day. The second motion sought a modification of the February 25, 1985 protective order such that all discovery materials could be freely disseminated, except for those documents in which Liggett had “good cause” for continued confidentiality. It also requested that the district court order the parties to file all discovery materials in court. The broad relief requested by Public Citizen seemingly applied to materials produced both by Liggett and the plaintiffs, but, in argument, Public Citizen made clear that it sought access only to the Little documents produced by Liggett.

Public Citizen based its access claim on Rules 5(d) and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 5(d) provides:

All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may on motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers and respons *779 es thereto not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding.

Rule 26(c) provides in pertinent part:

Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court; (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; (8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.

Rule 5(d), Public Citizen argued, creates a presumption that all discovery materials will be available to the public because they will be filed in court. Moreover, under Rule 26(c), public access can be cut off through a protective order only upon the showing of “good cause.” Especially in light of the district court’s dismissal of the Palmers’ claims in this case, Public Citizen asserted that good cause for the February 25, 1985 protective order no longer existed. Thus, it said, the order should be modified and Rule 5(d) filing of discovery materials ordered.

Public Citizen did not make a formal motion to intervene in the case pursuant to Rule 24. Rather, it sought to proceed informally under Rule 16(g) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Local Rule 16(g) is based on Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules, but it actually reverses in part the filing presumption of Rule 5(d), by providing that discovery materials ordinarily are not to be filed in court “unless so ordered by the court or for use in the proceeding.” Essentially, Rule 16(g) codifies the local practice of district courts always ordering — as Rule 5(d) permits— that discovery materials otherwise subject to the Rule 5(d) filing requirement not be filed pursuant to Rule 5(d) unless the court asks that they be filed. To facilitate this scheme, Rule 16(g) provides that parties and nonparties may request that filing be ordered:

If for any reason a party or concerned citizen believes that any [discovery documents subject to the Rule 5(d) filing requirement] should be filed, an ex parte request may be made that such document be filed, stating the reasons therefor. The court may also order filing sua sponte.

Believing that Rule 16(g) thus obviated the need for obtaining formal intervenor status in order to request filing, Public Citizen sought relief as a nonparty. In the event the district court thought intervention necessary, however, Public Citizen did ask to be granted intervenor status and argued that intervention had been routinely granted in the past when nonparties sought access to judicial records.

Liggett opposed the motion on a number of grounds. It claimed first that Public Citizen could participate only as a Rule 24 intervenor and that the time for requesting intervention had passed. For this reason, Liggett said, Public Citizen lacked standing. Liggett also disputed Public Citizen’s interpretation of Rule 5(d), maintaining that it created no general right of public access to discovery materials. Finally, Lig-gett argued that even if Public Citizen had standing to seek public access, there had been no showing of compelling need for a modification.

The district court held a hearing on January 28,1988, with counsel for Liggett, Pub- *780 lie Citizen and the plaintiffs present. 3 The court began by considering whether it still had jurisdiction over the matter, in light of its previous order of dismissal and judgment for Liggett on the merits. It found that jurisdiction did exist, because the outstanding protective order presented a live controversy extending past the dismissal of the underlying claims. The court also agreed with Public Citizen that there is a right of public access to discovery materials under the federal rules, a right that was especially strong in this case because of the important public health concerns surrounding the documents in question. Moreover, the court said, Liggett had failed to establish any compelling need for continuing the protective order. The court accordingly ordered that the eighteen boxes of Little documents to which the plaintiffs had access, along with the documents already in the plaintiffs’ possession, be filed in court and made available to the public. 4

The district court issued a stay pending appeal and this appeal followed.

II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S POWER

We begin our analysis, as did the district court, by examining the court’s jurisdiction, or power, to issue discovery-related orders after the court dismissed the underlying claims and entered a judgment on the merits. In so doing, we think it is important to distinguish between two separate and distinct aspects of the district court’s January 28, 1988 order which is under review: the modification of the protective order and the order that the parties file the discovery materials in court.

Under Local Rule 16(g), the parties to this case were, as parties to cases in the District of Massachusetts generally are, excused from filing discovery materials in court. The effect of this nonfiling was to deny the public the right it would otherwise have had to inspect freely the discovery materials in this case, because the materials were not kept in any publicly accessible location. Certainly the public has no right to demand access to discovery materials which are solely in the hands of private party litigants. Rule 16(g) does not in any way limit the use or dissemination of discovery materials by parties. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that parties have general first amendment freedoms with regard to information gained through discovery and that, absent a valid court order to the contrary, they are entitled to disseminate the information as they see fit. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31-36, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2206-09, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); see also Oklahoma Hospital Ass’n v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 748 F.2d 1421, 1424 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3528, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). In this case, the only thing limiting the parties’ rights to disseminate discovery materials was the protective order of February 25, 1985, which barred nonlitigatory use of the Little documents.

Prior to the entry of that order the situation was this: the parties were not required to release publicly the discovery materials by filing them, but they were free to disseminate them if they chose to do so. Cf. Oklahoma Hospital Ass’n, 748 F.2d at 1424 (“While it may be conceded that parties to litigation have a constitutionally protected right to disseminate information gained by them through the discovery pro *781 cess absent a valid protective order, it does not follow that they can be compelled to disseminate such information.”) (citing Seattle Times, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199). The same situation would have again existed on January 28, 1988, if the district court had modified or vacated the protective order, but not ordered filing under Rule 5(d). Instead, however, in response to Public Citizen’s request, the district court both modified the protective order by virtually eliminating it, see note 4 supra, and ordered filing, without much distinguishing between these two aspects of its order. Because we believe that the two aspects raise separate legal issues and concerns, we consider them individually.

With respect to the filing aspect of the court’s order, we believe that by the time the district court acted on January 28, 1988, it lacked the power to impose such new requirements on the parties. Accordingly, we vacate that part of the district court’s order.

Our reasoning is simple. The district court’s judgment of October 6, 1987, was a final dismissal on the merits, concluding the litigation between the Palmers and Lig-gett. It left no substantive issue unresolved and it contained no provisions for equitable relief that would have required ongoing supervision by the district court. Under these circumstances, we think that the court simply lacked power to impose any new, affirmative requirements on the parties relating to discovery. See Cooper v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 256 F.2d 464, 466-67 (1st Cir.) (once a district court dismisses a complaint and enters judgment, it lacks the power to grant a motion to amend the complaint), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 875, 79 S.Ct. 112, 3 L.Ed.2d 105 (1958); Bailey v. Proctor, 166 F.2d 392, 395 (1st Cir.1948) (a district court’s jurisdiction to modify its own orders exists “as long as no final order has been issued”); see also Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 683 (3d Cir.1988) (“[Ajbsent allegations of fraud or other extraordinary circumstances, trial exhibits that were restored to their owner after a case has been completely terminated and which were properly subject to destruction by the clerk of court are no longer judicial records within the ‘supervisory power’ of the district court.”).

To be sure, a district court has limited power to undo or alter a judgment after the judgment has been entered. Within strict time constraints, a court may amend a judgment under Rule 59. Courts may also correct clerical mistakes, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), and even, for good reason, grant a party relief from judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). But no such relief was requested or granted here. The district court assumed, as did the parties, that the October 6, 1987 judgment was valid and final.

It is important to note that the purpose of discovery is to enable parties to an action to obtain material “which is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action,” a purpose that obviously can no longer be served once a case has been dismissed. Indeed, once a case has been dismissed and rights to appeal have lapsed, parties are under no obligation, legal or practical, even to preserve discovery materials they have obtained. In this case, for instance, both the plaintiffs and Liggett were free to destroy all the Little documents in their possession long before Public Citizen filed its motion, rendering any Rule 5(d) filing order meaningless. 5 Thus, although the district court had the power under Rule 5(d) to order filing of discovery materials during the pendency of the action, we hold that the court’s power did not extend to postjudgment action.

Turning next to the district court’s modification of the protective order, we think that an entirely different analysis applies. Unlike the filing order of January 28, 1988, the protective order was entered on February 25, 1985, long before the dismissal and judgment and at a time when the court clearly had the power to super *782 vise and issue orders concerning discovery. 6 Moreover, the protective order, by its own terms, extended until forty-five days after the “final adjudication or settlement” of the Palmers’ claims. 7 During the pendency of the protective order, including times after judgment, the order acted as an injunction, setting forth strict limitations on the parties’ use of discovery materials.

In support of this “injunction,” the district court necessarily had the power to enforce the order, at any point while the order was in effect, including periods after judgment. As was demonstrated by the court’s order to compel compliance in the face of plaintiffs’ expressed intention to provide the Little documents to the Wall Street Journal, violation of the protective order during its lifetime would have exposed the parties to contempt liability. Correlative with this power to enforce, the district court necessarily also retained power to modify the protective order in light of changed circumstances. The Supreme Court established long ago that even an injunction entered by consent of the parties — and this protective order was entered over the objections of the plaintiffs — is always modifiable.

Power to modify the decree was reserved by its very terms, and so from the beginning went hand in hand with its restraints. If the reservation had been omitted, power there still would be by force of principles inherent in the jurisdiction of chancery. A continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need.... [A] court does not abdicate its power to revoke or modify its mandate if satisfied that what it has been doing has been turned through changed circumstances into an instrument of wrong.

United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114-15, 52 S.Ct. 460, 462, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932); see also Coalition of Black Leadership v. Cianci, 570 F.2d 12, 14 (1st Cir.1978) (“There is little dispute that a sufficient change in circumstances is a meritorious reason for a court to modify an injunction or consent decree.”); Theriault v. Smith, 519 F.2d 809, 810 (1st Cir.1975); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc., 177 F.2d 177, 186 (1st Cir.1949). “When dealing with its equitable powers, a court possesses the intrinsic power to adapt the injunction to meet the needs of a ‘new day.’” Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1030 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S.Ct. 802, 88 L.Ed.2d 778 (1986).

Consistent with this well-established rule, we think that the district court in this case had the inherent power to modify its February 25, 1985 protective order for so long as the order was in effect. We note that the courts and commentators seem unanimous in finding such an inherent power to modify discovery-related protective orders, even after judgment, when circumstances justify. E.g., Ex Parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435, 440, 36 S.Ct. 140, 141, 60 L.Ed. 368 (1915); FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 232 (2d Cir.1982); Krause v. Rhodes, 671 F.2d 212 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823, 103 S.Ct. 54, 74 L.Ed.2d 59 (1982); United States v. GAF Corp., 596 F.2d 10, 16 (2d Cir.1979); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596-97 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 971, 99 S.Ct. 1533, 59 L.Ed.2d 787 (1979); Olympic Refining Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 265-66 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 900, 85 S.Ct. 186, 13 L.Ed.2d 175 (1964); Marcus, Myth and Reality in Protective Order Litigation, 69 Cornell L.Rev. 1, 41-53 (1983); Note, Non-party Access to Discovery Materials in *783 Federal Court, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1085, 1091-96 (1981).

In sum, although the court lacked power to impose new discovery-related obligations after dismissing the case on the merits, we find that, because the protective order was still in effect, the district court had the power to make postjudgment modifications to the protective order in light of changed circumstances. Accordingly, we move on to consider the propriety of the modification actually ordered.

III. STATUS OF THE NONPARTY MOVANTS

As previously noted, Public Citizen did not secure Rule 24 intervenor status in this case, but rather sought to participate informally under Local Rule 16(g) as a nonparty movant. 8 In the district court, Liggett maintained that intervention was necessary and now, on appeal, challenges the district court’s modification order on the ground that Public Citizen lacked standing because it was not granted intervenor status. Lig-gett also claims that Public Citizen was ineligible for Rule 24 intervention in any event because its motion was untimely. We find Liggett’s procedural arguments unavailing.

The question of whether nonparty mov-ants may obtain relief in a civil case appears to be one of first impression in this court. Prior third-party challenges to court closures and protective orders have involved either parties who did obtain formal intervenor status, Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1986); In re San Juan Star Co., 662 F.2d 108, 112 (1st Cir.1981), or criminal cases where intervention is not available. E.g., In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d 47, 50 n. 2 (1st Cir.1984); see also Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (third-party claim of access to criminal proceeding); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982) (same). We think this fact is significant in and of itself, for it demonstrates that, where intervention is available (i.e. civil cases), it is an effective mechanism for third-party claims of access to information generated through judicial proceedings. Like this case, both Anderson and San Juan Star involved challenges to protective orders covering discovery materials and, in each case, Rule 24 provided a workable means for mounting the challenge. Public Citizen has pointed to no circumstances in this case which made formal intervention impossible or impracticable.

Relying on the language of Rule 24, the Fifth Circuit has previously held that intervention is “the procedurally correct course” for third-party challenges to protective orders. In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 589 F.2d 786, 789 (5th Cir.1979) (emphasis added). We agree. Rule 24(c) provides that “[a] person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c) (emphasis added). The *784 language of the rule is mandatory, not permissive, and the rule sets forth reasonable procedural requirements to insure that claims for intervention are handled in an orderly fashion. Especially in view of the failure to show that compliance with the rule would be unduly onerous or ineffectual, we are not willing to create a special category of non-Rule 24 intervention for third parties who wish to challenge protective orders through informal motion. Public Citizen should have been granted Rule 24 intervenor status before the district court acted on its motion for access to the discovery materials.

We do not, however, view this error as fatal to Public Citizen’s claim. We find two factors persuasive. First, although Public Citizen sought to proceed in the first instance without Rule 24 intervention, it did request, in the alternative, that it be granted intervenor status if the district court thought that intervention was necessary. Second, the district court did afford relief to Public Citizen as if it were a proper party to the case, thus implicitly granting it intervenor status. Under similar circumstances, other federal courts have been quite lenient in permitting participation by parties who failed to comply strictly with Rule 24. In Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 589 F.2d at 788-89, the Fifth Circuit, while setting down a prospective Rule 24 intervention requirement, was willing to overlook a failure to comply with Rule 24 in a discovery access case in light of “the fact that the district court’s acts might be considered equivalent to authorizing intervention.” The Third and Eighth Circuits have also overlooked a lack of formal compliance when the district court afforded relief to a nonparty and thus implicitly granted it intervenor status. United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550, 552 n. 2 (3d Cir.1982); Roach v. Churchman, 457 F.2d 1101, 1104 (8th Cir.1972); see also Ex Parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435, 441, 36 S.Ct. 140, 141, 60 L.Ed. 368 (1915) (a prefederal rules case) (third-party assertion of right of access to discovery materials “requires no particular formality”). We think that a similar approach is appropriate here.

It is clear from the proceedings below that the district court considered Public Citizen to have a legitimate interest in seeking modification of the protective order. We have no doubt that, had the district court thought Rule 24 intervention necessary, it would have treated Public Citizen’s motion as a request for intervention and granted it. That being so, no purpose would now be served if this court were to dismiss the appeal and send this case back to the district court for the rote procedural step of approving intervention. After a substantial delay, the case would still return to us in a similar posture for resolution of the substantive issue underlying this dispute. For purposes of this appeal, then, we will treat Public Citizen as having requested and been granted status as a Rule 24 intervenor. A caveat is, however, in order: “[W]e reiterate that a formal motion for intervention should have been filed pursuant to Rule 24(c). Future litigants should not attempt to use this opinion to circumvent the clear requirements of the rule.” Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 589 F.2d at 789.

We turn next to Liggett’s contention that, even if Public Citizen is treated as having requested intervention, its motion to modify was untimely as a matter of law because it was filed on December 28, 1987, twelve weeks after the judgment on the merits in this case and after the time for appeal from that judgment had expired. We begin our analysis with two fundamental principles. First, although Rule 24 requires that an application for intervention be “timely,” the rule itself sets down no bright line standard for determining what constitutes timeliness. It has thus been held that “timeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances.” NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 2603, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973); see also Culbreath v. Dukakis, 630 F.2d 15, 20 (1st Cir.1980). Second, timeliness determinations under Rule 24 are vested in the sound discretion of the district court. NAACP, 413 U.S. at 366, 93 S.Ct. at 2603. Here, the court found that Public Citizen’s motion was timely, and we can overturn that ruling only if an abuse of discretion is demon *785 strated. See id.; Garrity v. Gallen,