Judge lifts order preventing legal journal from publishing information on juicemaker probe

Judge lets paper publish info on juicemaker probe

WASHINGTON — A judge has lifted an order that prevented a legal newspaper from publishing information found in court records that were supposed to have been shielded from public view.

The Internet blog of the National Law Journal said Friday that the judge freed the newspaper to publish the information, which concerned an investigation of juicemaker POM Wonderful by the Federal Trade Commission.

POM had fought to keep the investigating agency’s name secret, but reversed course Friday and asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff to rescind her order. Bartnoff had ordered the records sealed, but they mistakenly remained available.

POM said in a statement that it never intended to provoke a First Amendment fight over the issue.

“POM is, and always has been, fervent supporters of and believers in the freedom of the press, and takes very seriously its commitment to transparency in all aspects of our business,” the company said.

Its request to the judge came as news organizations filed legal papers in support of the law journal that said Bartnoff’s order lacked “any conceivable justification” and should be reversed immediately.

They include the American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Dow Jones, Gannett, The New York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Bartnoff verbally ordered the records sealed on July 9 during a closed-door hearing in the dispute between POM and the Hogan Lovells law firm. Bartnoff issued a written order July 20.

But the records hadn’t actually been sealed by July 15, when the newspaper said it obtained from the court’s files copies of publicly available documents that contained the regulatory agency’s name.

A week later, POM asked the judge to bar the law journal and its parent company, ALM Media, from publishing the regulatory agency’s name. The judge granted a temporary restraining order the next day and has set a hearing for Aug. 6.

Bartnoff said the court’s interest in ensuring that its orders are put in place outweighed the newspaper’s argument about press freedom.

The Supreme Court has never upheld an order prohibiting a media outlet from publishing information. Nearly 40 years ago, the court refused to block The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon’s secret history of the Vietnam war.