Some Daylight for Simpson Civil Trial : Hearing of lawsuits will be off to a good start if judge refuses to keep deposition secret

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Allan B. Haber could get the wrongful-death suits against O.J. Simpson off to a proper start next week by denying a motion by Simpson’s attorneys to seal his coming deposition. There is little legal foundation for granting the motion. And given the statements from Simp- son and his attorneys during and immediately after his criminal trial, there is ample justification not to do so.

Simpson, acquitted last month on charges of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson, his former wife, and her friend Ronald Goldman, now faces wrongful-death suits brought by their families. Because the constitutional right against self-incrimination extends only to criminal matters, Simpson cannot invoke the 5th Amendment during the civil proceedings. If he fails to testify or answer questions under oath during pretrial depositions, he loses the cases by default. Defense lawyers are seeking a protective order to keep Simpson’s deposition confidential, contending that the public does not have a right to know the details of his answers to a host of questions, including some about his actions on June 12, 1994, the date of the killings. In addition, Simpson’s attorneys argue that if the deposition becomes public the news might taint potential jurors.

Simpson himself apparently had no such concerns when, shortly after his acquittal, he spoke by telephone on CNN’s “Larry King Live” about some of his actions on the night of the murders. Given those statements, plus his statement to Judge Lance A. Ito in open court during his trial (without the jury present) and publication of his book, “I Want to Tell You,” in which he proclaimed his innocence, Simpson’s claim now to confidentiality strains credulity.

More important, state statutes and local court rules “disfavor” requests to seal depositions except where trade secrets or other issues of privilege are involved. No such issues are relevant here. And it is impossible to believe, no matter what Simpson says in his deposition, that the testimony would result in any more prejudice against him than that created by the massive coverage of the case. The potential impact of Simpson’s deposition has been likened to pouring a cup of water into the ocean.

Judge Haber should not only deny this meritless motion but move to take control of this civil proceeding before it gets out of hand, as the criminal trial did.

There’s no reason the civil claims cannot be handled expeditiously; with the exception of Simpson, most of the parties known to have information in this case already have testified in the criminal trial. The record is voluminous. There is no reason to confound or be delay.