Page 119 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- Geraldine Hughes -

production and section 2033(e) applies to request for admis-
sion.
Mr. Cochran further cited that a protective order was nec-
essary to protect third parties' privacy rights and litigants from
unwarranted annoyance or embarrassment. Boler v. S. Ct. Of
Solano County, 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 475, 247 Cal.Rptr. 185
(1987). The trial court has discretion to order that information
obtained through discovery not be disclosed and be filed un-
der seal as confidential. Coalition Against Police Abuse v. S.Ct.,
170 Cal.App.3d 888, 216 Cal.Rptr. 614 (1985).
Because of the lurid allegations against Michael Jackson,
Mr. Cochran felt that the questions asked of the minors and
their parents would be highly embarrassing, personal and pri-
vate. He also felt that because of the running commentary by
plaintiff's attorney on information gathered during the discov-
ery had and would add to the media frenzy and exacerbate
the massive invasion of privacy of Michael Jackson's life. Es-
pecially concerning information pertaining to his residence,
routines, habits and security being revealed and public disclo-
sure would violate Michael Jackson's right to privacy.
The California Constitution, Article I, section 16, says that:
"A defendant is entitled to a fair civil trial by an impartial jury."
Dorshkind v. Harry N. Koff Agency, Inc., 64 Cal.App.3d, 302,
308, 134 Cal.Rptr. 344 (1976). Mr. Cochran stated that the me-
dia circus has already prevented Michael Jackson from the right
to a fair trial and that the protective order would minimize
evidence from being spread all over the world by plaintiff's
attorney.
The District Attorney's office had threatened to subpoena
the discovery taken in the civil lawsuit to use in their criminal
investigation. Mr. Cochran's position was that discovery
should not be a tool to further the District Attorney's investi-
gation. The protective order, in his estimation, would prevent
information revealed through discovery to be used in aid of
the pending investigation of the same charges by law enforce-
ment which would give the state an unfair advantage. The
District Attorney's office did, in fact, ask the plaintiff's attor-

118