Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Civil Procedure

discoveryprotective orderFirst AmendmentRule 26Civil ProcedureRule 26(c)protective orderspretrial discovery

Facts

Rhinehart, the leader of the Aquarian Foundation, sued the Seattle Times and others for defamation and invasion of privacy based on newspaper articles about him and the Foundation. During discovery, the defendants sought extensive financial information, including identities of donors and members, and respondents sought a protective order because defendants intended to publish information obtained in discovery. After affidavits described harassment, threats, and likely adverse effects on membership and contributions, the trial court entered a protective order covering discovered information about plaintiffs' financial affairs and the identities of members, contributors, clients, and donors. The order barred publication or other use of that information except as necessary to prepare for and try the case, but did not restrict dissemination of identical information obtained outside discovery.

Issue

Whether parties to civil litigation have a First Amendment right to disseminate, before trial, information they obtain solely through the pretrial discovery process. More specifically, whether a Rule 26(c) protective order restricting dissemination of discovered information violates the First Amendment.

Rule

Where 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 dissemination of the information if gained from other sources, it does not offend the First Amendment. Rule 26(c) serves a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppressing expression by preventing abuse of the discovery process and protecting privacy and related interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a civil fraud suit in Phoenix, Dana Mercer subpoenas internal payment records from Solara Ridge Wellness through discovery. After affidavits show that disclosure of customer identities would likely trigger harassment, the court enters an order barring Dana from publishing customer names obtained through discovery, but expressly states she may publish the same names if she learns them from former customers or other sources outside discovery.

If Dana argues the order violates the First Amendment because it restrains truthful speech, how should a court rule?

Explanation. A protective order does not offend the First Amendment when it is entered on a showing of good cause, is confined to information obtained through pretrial civil discovery, and does not restrict dissemination of the same information if acquired from other sources. The majority emphasized that discovery materials are obtained only by virtue of court processes and are not a traditionally public source of information.