UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILL EVANS; THE CENTER FOR No. 20-16416 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-01843- v. KAW SYNOPSYS, INC., Intervenor-Appellant,

and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Appellee.

WILL EVANS; THE CENTER FOR No. 20-16538 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-01843- v. KAW SYNOPSYS, INC., Intervenor-Cross-Appellee,

and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. 2 EVANS V. SYNOPSYS

WILL EVANS; THE CENTER FOR No. 20-16826 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, Plaintiffs, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-01843- v. KAW

SYNOPSYS, INC., Intervenor-Cross-Appellee, OPINION

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 4, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed May 12, 2022

Before: Richard R. Clifton and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Michael J. McShane, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Friedland

* The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. EVANS V. SYNOPSYS 3

SUMMARY **

Timely Notice of Appeal / Intervenor

The panel dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction prospective intervenor Synopsys, Inc.’s untimely appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Center for Investigative Reporting (“CIR”); and dismissed as moot CIR’s and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”)’s cross-appeals.

CIR brought a FOIA action against DOL, claiming that DOL was improperly withholding workforce demographic data that Synopsys and other companies had submitted pursuant to federal-contractor reporting regulations. The district court granted CIR summary judgment. Seven weeks after that judgment was entered, and eleven days before the deadline to file a notice of appeal, Synopsys moved to intervene as a defendant. About five months after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal of the judgment, the district court denied Synopsys’s motion to intervene for the purpose of asserting a crossclaim but granted Synopsys limited intervention for the sole purpose of appealing the judgment. Synopsys then filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

The district court had granted CIR’s motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2019, and entered judgment the same day. The deadline for a party to file a notice of appeal was February 10, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 EVANS V. SYNOPSYS App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Synopsys filed a notice of appeal on July 22, 2020.

The panel held that Synopsys failed to timely appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Synopsys argued that the time to appeal prescribed by § 2107(b) applies only to parties and not to prospective intervenors. The panel disagreed. Although generally only parties may appeal an adverse judgment, it does not follow that the deadline to file a notice of appeal for prospective intervenors is different from the