Document: 467 U.S. 20 104 S.Ct. 2199 81 L.Ed.2d 17 SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, et al., Petitionersv.Keith Milton RHINEHART al. No. 82-1721. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 21, 1984. Decided May Syllabus Respondent Rhinehart is spiritual leader a religious group, respondent Aquarian Foundation. In recent years, petitioner newspaper companies published several stories about and A damages action for alleged defamation invasions privacy was brought in Washington state court by respondents (who also include certain members Foundation) against petitioners authors articles their spouses). During course extensive discovery, refused to disclose information, including identity Foundation's donors members. Pursuant discovery Rules modeled on Federal Civil Procedure, trial issued an order compelling identify all who made contributions during five years preceding date complaint, along with amounts donated. The required divulge enough membership information substantiate any claims diminished membership. However, pursuant State's Rule 26(c), protective prohibiting from publishing, disseminating, or using way except where necessary prepare try case. seeking order, had submitted affidavits Foundation averring that public release would adversely affect income subject its harassment reprisals. By terms, did not apply gained means other than process. affirmed both production concluding even if latter assumed constitute prior restraint free expression, violated discretion issuing order. Held: this case does offend First Amendment. Pp. 29-37. (a) addressing Amendment question presented here, it consider whether "practice [furthers] important substantial governmental interest unrelated suppression expression" "the limitation freedoms [is] no greater essential protection particular involved." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 396, 413, 94 1800, 1811, 40 224. 31-32. (b) Judicial limitations party's ability disseminate discovered advance implicates rights restricted party far lesser extent restraints dissemination contexts. authorizing are matter legislative grace. litigant has right access available only purposes trying his suit. Furthermore, placed restriction traditionally source information. 32-34. (c) 26(c) furthers expression. Liberal pretrial under significant potential abuse. There opportunity litigants obtain incidentally purposefully—information irrelevant but publicly released could be damaging reputation privacy. prevention such abuse sufficient justification authorization orders. 34-36. (d) provision orders Rules—conferring broad court—requires, itself, heightened scrutiny. unique character process requires have latitude fashion P. 36. (e) case, entered upon showing constituted good cause as 26(c). Also, limited context civil restrict obtained sources. It Court's decision highest State found court's issue constitutional law. 36-37. 98 Wash.2d 226, 654 P.2d 673 (1982), affirmed. Evan L. Schwab, Seattle, Wash., petitioners. Malcolm Edwards, respondents. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents parties litigation disseminate, trial, through 2 * fewer 1,000 members, most whom live Washington. beliefs life after death communicate dead medium. primary 3 Seattle Times Walla Union-Bulletin Altogether 11 appeared newspapers 1973, 1978, 1979. 1973 focused manner which he operated They described seances conducted people paid him put them touch deceased relatives friends. stated sold magical "stones" been "expelled" body. One article referred Rhinehart's conviction, later vacated, sodomy. four 1978 concentrated "extravaganza" sponsored at Penitentiary. treated 1,100 inmates 6-hour-long show, gave away between $35,000 $50,000 cash prizes. "chorus line girls [who] shed gowns bikinis sang. . ." App. 25a. two 1979 purported connection Lou Ferrigno, star popular television program, "The Incredible Hulk." II 4 Superior behalf himself Times, Union-Bulletin, articles, spouses authors. Five female participated presentation penitentiary joined suit plaintiffs.1 complaint alleges contained statements were "fictional untrue," defendants—petitioners here—knew, should known, they false. According "did calculated hold [Rhinehart] up scorn, hatred ridicule, impeach honesty, integrity, virtue, philosophy, person profession leader." Id., 8a. With respect Foundation, states: "[T]he have, may had, effect discouraging thereby financial pursue corporate purposes." 9a. misrepresented role "choir" falsely implied "stripped off clothes wantonly danced naked. 6a. requests $14,100,000 privacy.2 5 Petitioners filed answer, denying many allegations asserting affirmative defenses.3 promptly initiated discovery. deposed Rhinehart, requested documents pertaining affairs served interrogatories Respondents turned over number documents, tax returns. refused, however, information,4 10 list period. 6 motion 37 requesting discovery.5 supporting memorandum, recognized principal respondents' "refusa[l] permit effective inquiry into affairs, donations, transactions, uses wealth assets, condition general." Record 350. opposed motion, arguing compelled identities violate privacy, freedom religion, association. moved preventing disseminating noted intention continue publishing litigation, intent use future articles. 7 lengthy ruling, initially granted compel ordered Relying re Halkin, 194 U.S.App.D.C. 257, 598 F.2d 176 (1979),6 facts support too conclusory warrant finding "good cause" 26(c).7 stated, denial "without prejudice [respondents'] move specifically materials factual restraining defendants those materials." 16. 8 reconsideration renewed request. detailed series letters telephone calls defaming Rhinehart—including threatened physical harm associated affiants incidents headquarters involving attacks, threats, assaults directed anonymous individuals groups. general, averred donor lists additional 9 Persuaded these affidavits, covering pertained various plaintiffs, names addresses contributors, clients, plaintiffs." 65a. prohibited process.8 accompanying opinion, petitioners' publish reasoned avoid "chilling effect" "a willingness bring court." 63. appealed both. (1982). reasoned: "Assuming then fall, ostensibly, least, within definition 'prior expression', we convinced judiciary integrity processes meet 'heavy burden' justification. need preserve adequate sustain rule like CR authorizes protect confidentiality given litigation." 256, P.2d, 690.9 12 "[t]he concerned plaintiff organization, associates recognizable interest; giving publicity matters allegedly understandably result annoyance, embarrassment oppression." 256-257, 690. Therefore, concluded, abused order.10 13 holding conflicts holdings Appeals District Columbia Circuit (1979),11 applies different standard San Juan Star Co., 662 108 (1981).12 We certiorari resolve conflict.13 464 812, 64, 78 80 (1983). affirm. III 14 Most States, Washington, adopted provisions 26 Procedure. F. James & G. Hazard, Procedure 179 (1977).14 26(b)(1) provides "may regarding matter, privileged, relevant involved pending action." further will admissible so long sought "appears reasonably lead evidence." Wash.Super.Ct.Civil 26(b)(1); Trust Fund Services Aro Glass 89 758, 763, 575 716, 719 (1978); cf. C. Wright A. Miller, Practice § 2008 (1970).15 15 do differentiate private intimate interests attach. Under Rules, express action. Thus, often allow intrusion third parties.16 If fails comply request directing compliance enforceable contempt powers. 37(b).17 16 argue imposes strict limits availability judicial restricting contend sources therefore "protected speech" purposes. assert recognize circumstances, thought present some restrained. submit, however: "When seeks limit proponent shows interest. Mere speculation conjecture insufficient. Any moreover, must narrowly drawn precise. Finally, before determine there alternatives intrude less directly expression." Brief 10. 18 think urged impose unwarranted duty oversee IV 19 is, course, clear authorized modern rules procedure rarely, ever, fall classes unprotected speech identified decisions argue, certainly knowing more well most—and possibly all—of what 26(b)(1). necessarily follow, unrestrained For though sweep seems prohibit observed "[f]reedom comprehend speak time." American Communications Assn. Douds, 339 382, 394-395, 70 674, 681-682, L.Ed. 925 (1950). critical litigant's comprehends might used. 224 (1974); see Brown Glines, 444 348, 354-355, 100 594, 599-600, 62 540 (1980); Buckley Valeo, 424 1, 25, 96 612, 637-638, 46 659 (1976). At outset, impairment one cause. As wish virtue processes. legislature, thereunder Zemel Rusk, 381 16-17, 85 1271, 1280-1281, (1965) ("The carry gather information"). continued control raise same specter government censorship suggest situations. See U.S.App.D.C., 287, F.2d, 206-207 (Wilkey, J., dissenting).18 Moreover, depositions components trial.19 Such proceedings open common law, Gannett Co. DePasquale, 443 368, 389, 99 2898, 2910, 61 608 (1979), and, practice. id., S.Ct., 2913-2914 (BURGER, C.J., concurring); Marcus, Myth Reality Protective Order Litigation, 69 Cornell L.Rev. Much surfaces unrelated, tangentially related, underlying discovered, yet admitted, 21 note kind classic exacting supra, 399, 2915 (POWELL, concurring). prevents identical covered independent sum, context. our consideration takes account position occupy relation B 22 Procunier, 1811. enable "relevant involved" believe helpful preparation 26, viewed entirety. provided sole purpose assisting settlement, litigated disputes. Because liberality permitted 26(b)(1), authority conferred experience abuse.20 delay expense; seriously implicate parties.21 distinguish Nor hands 23 opportunity, therefore, clearly sort Cf. Herbert Lando, 441 153, 176-177, 1635, 1648-1649, 60 115 (1979); Gumbel Pitkin, 124 131, 145-146, 379, 384-385, 31 374 (1888). Judge Friendly International Products Corp. Koons, 325 403, 407-408 (CA2 1963), "[w]hether itself [a order] jurisdiction inherent 'equitable powers courts law own process, prevent abuses, oppression, injustices' " (citing supra). can attend coerced orders.22 C 24 find requires, To sure, confers decide when appropriate degree required. Legislature following example Congress approval determined necessary, reason disagree. best weigh fairly competing needs affected discovery.23 V 25 illustrate concerns justifiably prompt noted, allowing extremely broad. respondents—among things—to persons donations 5-year period together disclosure support. "result Wash.2d, where, sources, Amendment.24 judgment accordingly Affirmed. 27 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, concurring. 28 today recognizes orders, designed scrutiny acknowledges, approving "it 'practice expression' 'the involved.' Ante, 32 (quoting (1974)). 29 alternative materials, because "compelled association." 25. requisite (upon shown," make "any justice embarrassment, undue burden expense"). 673, 690 Given finding, approved "information [respondents], [respondents]." 27, n. 8. I agree justify overcome protections afforded expression join opinion. record unclear plaintiffs line" mentioned name Although allege caused decline answers raised issue. response explain seeking, claimed experienced drop Hawaii "from 300 150 people, [a] concurrent contributions." 503. Affirmative defenses included contentions substantially true accurate, privileged Fourteenth Amendments, statute run individual consented reasonable expectation performing prisoners. reveal current address residence. He affidavit stating relocated out fear safety risks bodily harm. give motion. part: "A party, notice thereby, county deposition taken, pending, Halkin debated below. Prior understood produced 1963). considered length. Characterizing "paradigmatic restraint," held require close restricts satisfied posed serious; precise; protecting intrudes 272, 191 (footnotes omitted). provides: "Protective Orders. Upon sought, shown, alternatively, relating deposition, taken expense, following: (1) had; (2) specified terms conditions, designation time place; (3) method selected discovery; (4) inquired into, scope matters; (5) designated court; (6) being sealed opened (7) trade secret confidential research, development, commercial disclosed way; (8) simultaneously file enclosed envelopes court. typical States. portions state: "2. Plaintiffs' plaintiffs. "3. each shall defined paragraph discovering result, defendant news media publication dissemination. application processes." assumed, arguendo, infringement rights, stated: persuasive argument otherwise entitled keep themselves, secure benefit perform obligation government, receiving waive agency exacted information." 239, 681. that, shields "abuse privilege," object production. here aspect decision. 6, supra. Star, rejected Halkin's approach constitutionality interests, somewhat lessened "In then, measure 'good cause' incorporates 'heightened sensitivity' stake. 116. consistent Second 407-408. Bushman New Holland Division, 83 429, 433, 518 1078, 1080 (1974). language federal counterpart same, look interpreting guidance. Discount Saratoga West, Inc., 34, 37-38, 499 869, 871 (1972). issuance virtually Compare Wash.Super.Ct.Civ.Rules 26(b) Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. (c). time, full: General. Parties action, relates claim defense existence, description, nature, custody, location books, tangible things having knowledge discoverable matter. ground objection inadmissible appears 30 31, depose oral written examination. produce evidence serving subpoena 45. 45(b)(1) quash modify "if unreasonable oppressive." 45(f) "Failure without excuse obey deemed issued." addition power, 37(b)(2) enforce including, example, established Fed.Rule 37(b)(2)(A). "surrender courthouse door," 268, 186, subordinated arise setting. instance, occasions communications participants ensure fair criminal defendant. Nebraska Press Stuart, 427 539, 563, 2791, 2804-2805, 49 683 (1976); 601, 2823 (BRENNAN, concurring judgment); Oklahoma Publishing Court, 430 308, 310-311, 97 1045, 1046-1047, 51 355 (1977); Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 361, 86 1507, 1521-1522, 600 (1966). conduct finds participants, counsel, witnesses, jurors." Gulf Oil Bernard, 452 89, 104, 101 2193, 2201-2202 68 693 (1981). Discovery rarely place public. Depositions scheduled times places convenient involved. Interrogatories answered private. clerk interrogatory answers, responses admissions, transcripts. 5(d). Jurisdictions filing customarily provide seal. ibid.; district adopt local providing fruits See, e.g., C.D.Cal.Rule 8.3; S.D.N.Y.Civ.Rule 19. records serve Comments Advisory Committee 1983 Amendments U.S.C.App., pp. 729-730 (1982 ed., Supp. I). observed: "There repeated expressions concern uncontrolled voices chorus. But until unless major changes reliance fact ample judge abuse." 1648-1649 (footnote omitted); 179, 1650 abuses litigants, sometimes inadequate oversight courts, lessen importance government's Whalen Roe, 429 589, 599, 876, 64 Cox Broadcasting Cohn, 420 469, 488-491, 95 1029, 1042-1044, 43 328 (1975). includes among "party oppression expense." contains specific reference implicated, implicit Rule. properly emphasized ensuring unimpeded courts: "[A]s rightly observed, rather expose themselves unwanted publicity, forgo pursuit just claims. system thus utilization remedies onerous reluctant unwilling it, resulting frustration valuable itself." 254, 689 California Motor Transport Trucking Unlimited, 404 508, 510, 92 609, 611-612, 642 (1972); NAACP Button, 371 415, 429-431, 328, 335-337, 405 (1963). addition, necessitate burdensome evidentiary findings time-consuming interlocutory appeals, illustrates. Zenith Radio Matsushita Electric Industrial 529 F.Supp. 866 (E.D.Pa.1981). apparent implicated. Respondents, relied Both resort redress grievances "chilled." 22,

Category: 2