Page 122 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- REDEMPTION -

have a right to be free of adverse publicity. There was no inva-
sion of privacy where the facts at issue are already known.
Sipper v. Chronicle Publishing, 154 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1047, 201
Cal.Rptr. 665 (1984).
The Time Mirror further stated that in order to state an in-
vasion of privacy claim, it must also be proven that the facts
revealed were so offensive as to shock the community's no-
tion of decency. Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Assn. Inc., 4 Cal.3d
529, 541, 93 Cal.Rptr. 866 (1971).

The People's (Garcetti and Sneddon) Response to
Defendant's Motion for Protective Order
Gil Garcetti and Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorneys
from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, jointly filed a response
to Mr. Cochran's motion for protective order. They wanted to
assure the Court that the progress of the child molestation in-
vestigation of Michael Jackson was not connected to, or dic-
tated by, the discovery process in the civil case. They stated
that they had no intention to slow or delay their investigation
for the purpose of obtaining information derived during the
Civil Discovery. They also confirmed that they had no inten-
tion to disclose any information they obtained during the
course of their investigation to anyone who was not in the law
enforcement agency.
However, they felt strongly that they were entitled to ob-
tain all depositions, statements, and any documentary or de-
rivative information from any witness who had evidence re-
lating to their criminal investigation. Therefore, they required
access to all Civil Discovery because serious injuries deserve
to be fully investigated. Their position was that the law en-
forcement agency should not be precluded or restricted from
gathering any information which pertains to investigation
which is not privileged. They also addressed the fact that three
days before filing their papers, Michael Jackson's attorneys re-
quested an opportunity to present evidence which might im-
pact their filing decision. They stated, "how can they now ar-
gue fundamental fairness?" With boldness, they contended that

121