holding that “restraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally public source of information,” and that “where a protective order is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], is limited to the context of pretrial discovery, and does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources, it does not offend the First Amendment”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “restraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally public source of information,” and that “where a protective order is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], is limited to the context of pretrial discovery, and does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources, it does not offend the First Amendment”
- holding that there is no First Amendment Right to publicize information obtained in discovery. “We therefore hold that where, as in this case, a protective order is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery and does not restrict the dissemination of information if gained from other sources, it does not offend the First Amendment.”
- stating that “[a]s in this case, such a protective order prevents a party from disseminating only that information obtained through use of the discovery process. Thus, 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.”
- explaining that the liberality of the discovery process creates “a significant potential for abuse” such as delay, expense, misuse of process, and damage to the reputation and privacy of litigants and third parties, and courts “clearly ha[ve] a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates, 800 F.2d 339 (1986)
Thus, for the reasons that Seattle Times does not govern this case, these decisions also are inapposite.
The opinion
Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins,
concurring.
The Court today recognizes that pretrial protective orders, designed to limit the dissemination of information gained through the civil discovery process, are subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment. As the Court acknowledges, before approving such protective orders, “it is necessary to consider whether the ‘practice in question [furthers] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression’ and whether ‘the limitation of First Amendment freedoms [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental *38 interest involved.’ ” Ante, at 32 (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 413 (1974)).
In this case, the respondents opposed discovery, and in the alternative sought a protective order for discovered materials, because the “compelled production of the identities of the Foundation’s donors and members would violate the First Amendment rights of members and donors to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.” Ante, at 25. The Supreme Court of Washington found that these interests constituted the requisite “good cause” under the State’s Rule 26(c) (upon “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”). 98 Wash. 2d 226, 256 , 654 P. 2d 673, 690 (1982). Given this finding, the court approved a protective order limited to “information . . . regarding the financial affairs of the various [respondents], the names and addresses of Aquarian Foundation members, contributors, or clients, and the names and addresses of those who have been contributors, clients, or donors to any of the various [respondents].” Ante, at 27, n. 8. I agree that the respondents’ interests in privacy and religious freedom are sufficient to justify this protective order and to overcome the protections afforded free expression by the First Amendment. I therefore join the Court’s opinion.