Judge Refuses Simpson’s Bid to Seal Depositions in Lawsuits

A Santa Monica Superior Court judge on Wednesday refused O.J. Simpson’s request to keep secret the written transcript of Simpson’s upcoming deposition in wrongful-death lawsuits lodged by the families of murder victims Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Judge Alan B. Haber also rejected the request of Simpson’s attorneys for a gag order on all the parties and spurned those lawyers’ motions seeking to prohibit the videotaping of his deposition.

But Haber said that the deposition would be conducted under the supervision of a “neutral referee” and that the videotape would be held under tight security, in an effort to prevent its dissemination through broadcast media before the start of a trial.

Haber said that the presence of the referee at depositions would curtail the possibility of arguments that would bog down the proceedings and lead to the parties coming back to him for rulings on disputes that arose at contentious sessions.

“If there ever was a case that called for a discovery referee, this is it,” Haber said.

Simpson did not attend the session, nor did the family of his ex-wife. But Goldman’s father, stepmother and sister were present, as they were for virtually all of the criminal trial in which Simpson was acquitted.

“This lawsuit, as I’ve said before, is the only opportunity left for our family to get justice,” said Goldman’s father, Fred.

Added John Q. Kelly, one of the Brown family lawyers: “This cause of action is Nicole’s voice from the grave.”

In other rulings, Judge Haber consolidated suits against Simpson filed by Ronald Goldman’s father and sister Kim, a separate suit filed by Goldman’s mother, Sharon Rufo, and a third suit filed by the estate of Nicole Simpson.

In granting Simpson’s request for consolidation, Haber said it did not make sense to hold two trials when many of the same witnesses would testify in both cases. He said that consolidation also reduced the likelihood of inconsistent results in the two cases.

Haber set an April 2 trial date. He ordered the parties to return to court Jan. 18 for a status conference, when a trial judge may be designated.

Although Goldman family lawyer Daniel Petrocelli lost his bid to prevent consolidation, he said the Goldmans had won on “the most important” issue of the day--the maintenance of the April 2 trial date--meaning that the case should move swiftly.

At one point, Haber adjourned the public proceedings for about 15 minutes and discussed the logistics of Simpson’s deposition with the lawyers in chambers. Earlier in the hearing, Michael A. Brewer, Rufo’s attorney, said the deposition had been scheduled for Dec. 4-6.

But when the lawyers emerged from chambers, Haber said only that Simpson’s deposition had been scheduled. And the attorneys said that because of security concerns and other reasons the judge ordered them not to disclose when or where the interview would be conducted.

The judge’s ruling against sealing the transcript means the public may hear Simpson’s version of what happened on the night of the June 12, 1994, murders before the trial begins in April. However, none of the parties is obligated to make the transcript public and no mechanism was established for the dissemination of the written transcript.

It could be made part of the formal court record, released in some other way or simply quoted in part in other legal motions.

None of the attorneys would say Wednesday whether they will release the transcript.

Haber advised all the attorneys that he expects them to adhere to a new rule of the California Supreme Court, which directs them to avoid making any out-of-court comments about a pending case that would have a “substantial likelihood” of infringing on an individual’s right to get a fair trial.

Since the rule, which stemmed from alleged excesses in the Simpson criminal trial, has only been in effect since Oct. 1, there are no court decisions interpreting it, so the contours of what a lawyer can and cannot do have not yet emerged.

However, Kelli Sager, a lawyer who specializes in 1st Amendment issues, said she believes it is permissible for an attorney to release a deposition transcript or to describe what occurred during a deposition without violating the new rule.

“If all you said is what happened, I don’t think that’s forbidden by the rule, nor would [it forbid] handing out pages of the transcript,” said Sager, who was in court on behalf of several media organizations, including the Los Angeles Times, to argue against sealing the deposition.

“I think there is a public interest in having the entire transcript released because the public can see what happened, rather than relying on a second-hand characterization,” Sager said.

Simpson’s attorney, Robert C. Baker, originally requested the sealing order last month, contending that if the deposition transcript were released it would taint potential jurors in the case.

Baker’s motion was vigorously opposed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who characterized it as a cynical effort by Simpson to keep information secret while selectively calling certain members of the media to put his spin on events.

Baker reiterated his views Wednesday, even though the judge had given the lawyers a tentative written ruling that he would deny the sealing request. Baker particularly expressed concern that videotaped depositions would be leaked to television stations and that each deposition “will be the lead story on the 6 p.m. news.”

Consequently, Baker predicted, “we will get a jury pool that has made up its mind to a degree.”

But Haber ruled that Baker had not made a sufficient showing to warrant sealing the deposition. On the other hand, the judge said he saw a distinction between a written transcript and a videotape of what could be a very charged deposition. He noted that emotional displays by witnesses or others in the room during the deposition might be prejudicial if aired before the trial. That led him to call for the appointment of the referee and the sealing--for now--of any videotaped deposition. He said he will review that issue after the deposition is conducted.

In addition, Haber granted the request of Goldman family lawyer Edward Medvene that attorneys for the victims’ families inspect some of Simpson’s property still in the hands of the Los Angeles Police Department. Among the items are a fake beard, credit cards and a handgun recovered from the Ford Bronco of Simpson’s friend A.C. Cowlings after the infamous June 17, 1994, slow-speed chase. The attorneys were given two weeks to see the property before it is returned to Simpson.