Page 120 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025
P. 120

- REDEMPTION -

                          neys for a copy of the deposition transcript after the deposi-
                          tion was taken in the civil action. When the plaintiff's attorney
                          refused to provide a copy of the deposition, a Deputy District
                          Attorney informed Mr. Feldman that, "they could serve him
                          with a search warrant if necessary."
                          In Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court, it further states that, "the
                          prosecution should not be able to obtain, through the medium
                          of the civil proceedings, information to which it was not en-
                          titled under the Criminal Discovery rules..." Discovery is pre-
                          sumed to be private. It is taken behind closed doors in the pres-
                          ence of a Certified Court Reporter in the presence of only the
                          party being deposed, the attorneys and sometimes a third party
                          mediator. The transcript is not ordinarily lodged with the Court
                          except in cases of appeal, motions or when it is used as an
                          exhibit. The interrogatories, responses, production of docu-
                          ments and admissions are also not filed with the court except
                          for the same reasons. Mr. Cochran's point was that the media
                          had no greater right under the First Amendment to access in-
                          formation revealed through the Civil Discovery than private
                          citizens.
                          Mr. Feldman agreed to the entry of a stipulated protective
                          order, but took exception to being able to respond to false alle-
                          gations and to providing information to law enforcement agen-
                          cies.


                               Opposition to Protective Order by the Times Mirror Com-
                          pany
                                The Times Mirror Company, the publisher of the L.A.
                          Times, filed an opposition to the motion for protective order,
                          contesting the order restricted public access to any Court pro-
                          ceedings, including the Discovery conducted. It's position was
                          that the media had a right to intervene in ongoing civil and
                          criminal actions to raise their objection to a protective order to
                          seek access. Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F2d, 775,
                          783 84 (1st Cir. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1030 (1989).
                                It further stated that the headliners of major news organi-
                          zations throughout the world had focused on the investiga-




                                                                                              119
   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125