Tabloid Loses Bid to Block Publication of Story in Rival Paper

A federal judge refused Thursday to block the National Enquirer from reporting that its archrival, the Globe, paid $250,000 to a flight attendant to “set up” TV sportscaster Frank Gifford in an extramarital tryst.

The story, set to appear in next week’s edition of the Enquirer, also contends that Gifford’s wife, Kathie Lee, tried to get the flight attendant prosecuted for prostitution.

At an emergency hearing before U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles, a Globe attorney argued that the supermarket tabloid she represents has exclusive rights to the story under a contract with flight attendant Suzen Johnson.

The Globe broke the story of Johnson’s fling with Gifford in 1997 in an article headlined, “My Steamy Tryst With Frank Gifford.”

Since then, Enquirer editors say, Johnson has told her version of events to them.

“The Globe paid a lot of money for that article, though not as much as the Enquirer claims,” the Globe’s lawyer, Amy Hogue, said in court Thursday.

In her request for a temporary retraining order, Hogue sought to undercut an obvious argument that blocking publication of the article would violate 1st Amendment rights against censorship.

She said the Enquirer piece reveals trade secrets--how much the Globe pays for stories--and violates the Globe’s copyright on still-unpublished information. The 1st Amendment, she contended, is no defense against violations of trade secrets or copyright laws.

“This is a commercial effort to harm a competitor,” she insisted.

The Enquirer’s lawyer, Bruce A. Wessel, attacked the Globe’s legal arguments. He said the Globe’s copyright infringement claim was invalid because the Globe had failed to register its unpublished material as copyrighted.

In the end, Judge Snyder agreed with Wessel, expressing doubt over whether she could rule on the copyright violation claim and questioning whether any trade secrets were improperly exposed.

But even if those doubts could be overcome, Snyder said, any prior restraint on the Enquirer’s right to publish would be unconstitutional.