Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A protective order entered by a trial court on a showing of good cause, which is limited to pretrial civil discovery and does not restrict the dissemination of information gained from other sources, does not violate the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Keith Milton Rhinehart was the spiritual leader of the Aquarian Foundation, a religious group.
- The Seattle Times and the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin published a series of articles between 1973 and 1979 about Rhinehart and the Foundation.
- The articles described seances, Rhinehart's sale of 'magical stones,' a vacated sodomy conviction, and an 'extravaganza' for prison inmates featuring a 'chorus line of girls' who shed their gowns.
- Rhinehart, the Foundation, and several female members sued the newspapers for defamation and invasion of privacy, alleging the articles contained falsehoods that held them up to public scorn and diminished financial contributions.
- During the lawsuit, the newspapers sought to discover the Foundation's financial information, including the identities of its members and donors from the previous ten years.
- Rhinehart refused to disclose the member and donor lists, arguing it would violate their First Amendment rights to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
- In support of a protective order, Foundation members submitted affidavits detailing threats, harassment, and physical assaults they had experienced, and averred that public release of the lists would worsen these reprisals.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith Rhinehart and the Aquarian Foundation sued the Seattle Times and others in Washington Superior Court (a state trial court) for defamation and invasion of privacy.
- During discovery, the Seattle Times filed a motion to compel production of the Foundation's donor and membership lists.
- Rhinehart moved for a protective order to prevent the newspapers from publishing any information obtained through discovery.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel and, after a motion for reconsideration supported by affidavits showing harassment, also granted the protective order.
- The Seattle Times (petitioner) appealed the protective order, and Rhinehart (respondent) appealed the production order to the Supreme Court of Washington (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the trial court's orders, upholding the constitutionality of the protective order.
- The Seattle Times petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court's protective order, issued upon a showing of good cause under a state's civil procedure rule, that prohibits a party from publishing, disseminating, or using information gained through pretrial discovery for any purpose except preparing for and trying the case, violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, a protective order limited to information gained through pretrial discovery does not violate the First Amendment. Information obtained through civil discovery is not a traditionally public source of information, and a litigant has no First Amendment right of access to information made available solely for the purpose of litigation. The government has a substantial interest in preventing the abuse of its judicial processes, as liberal discovery rules can seriously implicate the privacy interests of litigants and third parties. Therefore, a protective order under a rule like Washington's Civil Rule 26(c), which requires a showing of 'good cause' and is limited to information obtained via discovery, is not a classic prior restraint requiring strict scrutiny and is a permissible means of protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No, the protective order is constitutional in this context. The majority correctly applies an intermediate scrutiny test, which requires that the order further a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppressing expression and be narrowly tailored. Here, the 'good cause' shown by Rhinehart and the Foundation involved their members' and donors' own First Amendment rights to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. These substantial interests are sufficient to justify the limited protective order and overcome the newspapers' First Amendment interest in disseminating the discovered information.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that information obtained solely through the compulsory process of civil discovery receives less First Amendment protection than information obtained through other means. It solidifies the authority of trial courts to prevent litigants from using the discovery process as a tool to gather and publicize embarrassing or private information unrelated to the litigation itself. By refusing to apply strict scrutiny to such protective orders, the Court grants trial judges substantial latitude to protect privacy and prevent abuse, ensuring that the primary purpose of discovery remains the preparation for trial, not public dissemination of coerced disclosures.
Unlock the full brief for Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart