Defendant's Attorney: Clary Grayson

Description: Portland, Oregon, civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiffs seeking the return of information inadvertently disclosed to the Defendants.

The panel held that the district court, as part of its inherent powers to oversee discovery in cases before it, had authority to order The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents because, as an intervenor, The Oregonian was a party to the case and was thus subject to the district court’s inherent case-management authority. The panel held that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process, and a court can police access to information disclosed in discovery. Applying relaxed First Amendment scrutiny, the panel held that the district court’s exercise of its inherent authority over parties’ access to the fruits of discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.

Outcome: Reversed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: