IN RE KOREAN AIR LINES DISASTER OF SEPT. 1, 1983, MDL No. 565

• Decision Date: 26 October 1984
• Docket Number: 84-0170.,Misc. No. 83-0345,MDL No. 565
• Citation: 597 F. Supp. 621
• Parties: In re KOREAN AIR LINES DISASTER OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1983. Application of the WASHINGTON POST COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

597 F. Supp. 621

In re KOREAN AIR LINES DISASTER OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 Application of the WASHINGTON POST COMPANY.

MDL No. 565, Misc. Nos. 83-0345, 84-0170.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

October 26, 1984.

Juanita M. Madole, Liaison Counsel, Speiser, Krause & Madole, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

George N. Tompkins, Jr., Condon & Forsyth, New York City, for Korean Air Lines.

Patrick J. Carome, Boisfeuillet Jones, Carol D. Melamed, Washington, D.C., for The Washington Post Co.

Mark A. Dombroff, Torts Branch, Civil Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States of America.

John J. Martin, Bingham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for Litton Industries, Inc. Thomas J. McLaughlin, Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Seattle, Wash., for The Boeing Co.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr., Chief Judge.

Presented for the Court's consideration is the Application of the Washington Post Company for an Order Vacating the December 22, 1983 Order Preventing the Divulgence of Information or Documents, the Opposition, Responses and Reply thereto and the arguments presented on said Application at a hearing held October 16, 1984. In its Application, the Washington Post Company (Post) has moved to challenge the validity of an order issued by this Court which prevents the parties from divulging any information or documents obtained in the discovery proceedings connected with the above-captioned multi-district litigation.

The challenged Order, entered December 22, 1983, provides

no party to these proceedings, directly or through counsel shall hereafter divulge any information or documents obtained in the course of these multidistrict litigation proceedings to any person not a party hereto, their counsel, consultants and experts retained in connection with this litigation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no party to these proceedings, directly or through counsel, shall discuss with the news media any information or documents obtained in the course of these multi-district proceedings, or any opinions with respect thereto, until a conclusion of a trial on the issue of liability of all parties defendant or until further Order of this Court.

The Post has applied to the Court on the ground that the order is a "prior restraint" on First Amendment freedoms and cannot pass muster under the rigorous standard for such restrictions. In support of this position the Post relies heavily on CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir.1975). Defendant Korean Air Lines Company, Ltd. (KAL) moved swiftly and vigorously to oppose the Application. Noting first that the alleged constitutional infirmity of the Order has been brought to the Court's attention by a non-party to the proceedings, Defendant argues that the December 22, 1983 Order is not a "prior restraint" but is instead a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) protective order. The Defendant relies upon Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984), to support its position.

Although the request for the December 22, 1983 Order was made by KAL at a pre-trial conference held in open court on December 9, 1983, the request came after discussion and upon the consent of all parties. All parties were represented at the hearing; none objected. When the Order was presented to the Court almost two weeks later, without objection, the stipulated consent of all parties signalled agreement on the need for and scope of the Order. It appeared to the Court at that time that the parties were not interested in exploiting the notoriety of the case but in conducting their private litigation without fanfare or undue publicity. Therefore, in accordance with the uniform wish of all concerned, the suggested order was entered pursuant to the Court's authority to...