Rhinehart (P) is spiritual leader of a weird religious sect. Seattle Times (D) wrote several articles about him and his group.
P alleged that D's articles were untrue and caused harm. P sued D for defamation and invasion of privacy (asked for $14M).
D asked in discovery for a list of donors and for a membership list.
The trial court initially granted the request and denied a protective order. Later, the court issued a protective order over the information.
Both parties appealed. P didn't want to turn info over; D wanted to be able to publish.
Procedural History:
Lower court compelled discovery and issued a protective order.
WA Supreme Court affirmed.
SCOTUS affirmed, compelled discovery and issued protective order.
Issues:
Do parties in civil litigation have a First Amendment right to disseminate, in advance of trial, information gained through the pretrial discovery process?
Holding/Rule:
The First Amendment is not offended by the restriction of dissemination of information gathered in pretrial discovery if a protective order is issued upon showing good cause as required by Rule 26(c). Also, a party can disseminate the information if it is obtained from other sources besides discovery.
Reasoning:
Although there is public interest in knowing more about the P, it does not follow that the D has an unrestrained right to disseminate information that has been obtained through pretrial discovery.
D only gained the information they want to disseminate through the virtue of the trial court's discovery processes.
A party has no First Amendment right of access to information made available only for purposes of trying his suit.
Pretrial depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial.
The party may disseminate the identical information covered by the protective order as long as the information is gained through means independent of the court's processes.
Courts have a substantial interest in preventing abuse of its processes (discovery). It is possible for a party to obtain info that not only is irrelevant but could harm the reputation and privacy of the opposing party.
Dissent:
None given.
Notes:
SCOTUS says the trial court should review discovery processes for abuse of discretion.
