595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979), 79-1056, Providence Journal Co. v. F.B.I.
|Docket Nº:||79-1056, 79-1067.|
|Citation:||595 F.2d 889|
|Party Name:||PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant, Appellee, v. Raymond L. S. PATRIARCA, Intervenor, Appellee. Appeal of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al., Defendants, Appellees. Appeal of Raymond L.|
|Case Date:||February 20, 1979|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
Submitted Feb. 16, 1979.
Leonard Schaitman and Michael Jay Singer, Attys. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on motion for stay pending appeal for Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
William M. Kunstler, New York City, and Harris L. Berson, Providence, R. I., on motion for stay pending appeal for Raymond L. S. Patriarca.
Matthew F. Medeiros, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., and Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., on memorandum in opposition to the motions for stay for Providence Journal Co.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
Defendants, Federal Bureau of Investigation and others, and Intervenor, Raymond L. S. Patriarca, have requested stays pending their appeals of the district court's order that certain FBI documents be forthwith disclosed to the plaintiff, Providence Journal Company. These documents reflect the results of an unauthorized and illegal wiretap which the FBI maintained at Patriarca's place of business in 1962-65. Defendants and the Intervenor appeal from the district court's ruling that, with certain exceptions, all this material be made available to the Journal.
The district court, while issuing a stay of several days in order to permit this court to orient itself and, if so inclined, grant a further stay, declined to do more. The court pointed out that, in effect, it had analyzed the case fully, that its order reflected its considered judgment, and that it would be "expecting too much to have it critically determine, as would be done through the mind of a stranger," whether appellants had made a strong showing of likely success on appeal. In view of the decision it had reached in the case, the district court thought that more than a brief stay would be a "prior restraint" on the Journal's publication rights as it had found them to be.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP