Page 124 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- REDEMPTION -

posed the protective order. Their position was that the protec-
tive order pertaining to pretrial discovery implicated the First
Amendment and was disfavorable and, where issued, should
be drawn as narrow as possible. It stated that the invasion of
privacy theory presented by Mr. Cochran was hollow in this
case because public interest of the best known public figure in
the world is unavoidable.

The Outcome of the Motion for Protective Order
The hearing on the Motion for Protective order was heard
on December 17, 1993. The Court ruled as follows:
1.) The motion to prevent parties-in-action from disclosing
informal and formal discovery material to the District
Attorney's office was denied.
2.) The Stipulation of counsel ordered as follows:
Neither side shall release to media or persons not a party
to the litigation a) videotapes; b) Discovery; c) information
regarding personal security of Michael Jackson; or medical or
psychiatric records.
3.) The motion to compel be filed under seal.
4.) The motion to compel further responses to written dis-
covery was denied.
In this decision, the Court did not completely rule against
Michael Jackson. It did take some of Mr. Cochran's points con-
cerning privacy in ordering that the motions to compel be filed
under seal and by denying the motion to compel further re-
sponses to discovery. However, Mr. Cochran's main interest
was the protective order and keeping the District Attorney's
office from accessing formal and informal discovery material
obtained in the civil lawsuit, which was denied. The Court's
decision, in essence, favored the District Attorney's office giv-
ing them free reign to access and obtain any and all informa-
tion that was produced in discovery in the civil lawsuit.
Mr. Cochran's repeated reason for making this request was
not to impede the criminal investigation nor to prevent the
district attorney's office from accessing the information dis-

123