ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF Plaintiff,

Vs.

JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY &
PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY,

Defendants.

CIVIL. ACTION FILE NO. OO-CIV 1187 (JEC)

NON-PARTY MEDIA ORGANIZATION CBS BROADCASTING INC.’S MOTION TO
INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER OF NON-PARTY WITNESS STEVE THOMAS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24 and N.DL.R. 7.1, non-party Media Organization CBS Broadcasting Inc.
(“CBS”) hereby files this motion to intervene and memorandum of law, respectfully requesting
permission from this Court to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the Motion For
Protective Order(“Motion”) filed by non-party witness Steve Thomas (“Thomas")

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

LEGAL ARGUMENT 4

A. CBS Should Be Given Permission To Intervene For The
Limited Purpose Of Opposing Thomas’ Request To Seal His
Deposition

B. Parties Are Presumptively Entitled To Publicly Disclose
Information Obtained In Discovery Absent A Protective Order
Entered For Good Cause

C. The Protective Order – By Its Terms – Cannot Conceivably
Encompass the Majority of Thomas’ Deposition Testimony

D. Even If The Protective Order Did Encompass Thomas’
Deposition, Thomas Has Shown No Good Cause For Its
Wholesale Sealing

CONCLUSION 17

INTRODUCTION

The underlying issue raised by Thomas’ Motion is whether a former public official can seek to
keep private deposition testimony that not only relates directly to his official conduct in a
high-profile murder investigation, but that also involves the same subject matter that he
willingly described to those who purchase his book, JonBenet – Inside The Ramsey Murder
Investigation (the “book”). Steve Thomas was a lead member of the Boulder Police
Department team that investigated the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, and had virtually
complete access to information regarding the murder and its investigation. When Thomas left
the police department in 1998, be authored a book that purported to disclose “behind the
scenes” information regarding JonBenet’s murder. In the book, he openly accused JonBenet’s
mother, Patricia Paugh Ramsey (“Mrs. Ramsey) of murder and accused JonBenet’s father, John
Bennett Ramsey (“Mr. Ramsey” ) of helping to cover up the crime.

Thomas solicited and received extensive media attention regarding the book and his theory
about JonBenet’s murder. Yet he now asks the Court to protect him from public attention to his
sworn testimony in this case which involves the same subject matter as his commercial book
venture. Thomas should not be allowed to hide behind a Protective Order that by its very terms
does not encompass his deposition. Because Thomas has not established any basis
2

for sealing his deposition, let alone the required “good cause”, his motion should be denied.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. CBS Should Be Given Permission To Intervene For The Limited Purpose Of
Opposing Thomas’ Request To Seal His Deposition.

CBS is a national television network that has reported extensively on the murder of JonBenet
Ramsey and its aftermath. Among other things, CBS’ news program “48 Hours” has reported
on the proceedings in this lawsuit, which arises out of accusations made about the murder. CBS
requests permission to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing Thomas’ request that his
deposition be sealed . Courts consistently have held that permitting such intervention “is the
procedurally correct course for third-party challenges to protective orders:" Public. Citizen v.
Liggett_Group Inc.., 858 F.2d 775, 783 (1St Cir. 1988) (internal quotes, citations omitted); see
also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co... 966 F.2d 470. 472-73 (9th Cir. 1992)
(noting that intervention is recognized as the proper method for third parties to modify or
challenge a protective order).The Eleventh Circuit has joined other circuits )in approving this
procedure, holding, that media “48 Hours” is a weekly newsmagazine produced by CBS News,
which is a division of CBS Broadcasting Inc.
organizations “have standing to intervene… and challenge the propriety of the district court’s
protective order.” In re Alexander Grand & Co. Litigation 820 F 2d:352, 354-55 (11th Cir. 1987)
(citations omitted).

Allowing media organizations to intervene on issues involving public access to information
about civil lawsuits, like this case, is consistent with the constitutional principle requiring that
the public and press be given a right to be heard on the issue of closure of any judicial
proceedings or documents See, e.g. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596,
610 n 24 (1982) (media and public “must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question
of their exclusion” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale. 443 U.S. 368, 401 (1979.) (Powell., J.
concurring) (If the constitutional right of the public and press to access is to have substance,
representatives of these groups must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of
their exclusion”). Consequently, this Court should grant CBS’ request to intervene for the
limited purpose of opposing Thomas’ Motion for Protective Order.

B. Parties Are Presumptively Entitled To Publicly Disc1ose Information
Obtained In Discovery Absent A Protective Order Entered For Good Cause.

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows thc public access to discovery
documents in the absence of a valid protective order. In Re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.,
821 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir. 1987). As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, the law’s basic
presumption is that the public is entitled, to every person’s evidence…- The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Proctor &
Gamble Co.. 758 F.2d 1545, 1546-47 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted; emphasis added).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a protective order may issue to protect a party from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The party seeking such a
protective order has the burden of demonstrating that good cause exists for its issuance. See
e.g., In re Agent Orange, supra 821 E.2d at 145. If good cause is not shown “then the
discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection aid therefore would be
open to the public,” Id. at see also Public Citizen 858P.2d at 790 (noting that implicit in
Rule26©’s cause requirement is the right of a party receiving discovery materials to make
them public

5

The Eleventh Circuit has agreed that the use of an “umbrella protective orders” requires an
initial showing of good cause for issuance of the order, and that such broad orders are
permitted as an interim measure. In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, supra, 820 F.2d at
356. Such orders are not intended to allow the wholesale designation of documents as
“confidential,” as Thomas asks the Court to do here. See In re Coordinated Pretrial
Proceedings 101 F.R 1) at 44 (umbrella protective orders delegate to litigants discretion to
designate documents to be sealed but “a problem arises if it later appears that the parties have
abused their authority to designate documents ‘Confidential’ or that, for some other reason,
some of the sealed information should not legitimately remain closed to the public”). Thus,
where, as here, there is a challenge to including a particular record under a protective order,
the party seeking to keep it secret must then demonstrate “good cause” to keep the particular
record under wraps. As the Eleventh Circuit explained, This method replaces the need to
litigate the claim to protect document by document, and postpones the necessary showing of
“good cause” required for entry of a protective order until the confidential designation is
challenged.

2 “Good cause” is established by evaluating “(1) the severity and the likelihood of the
perceived harm; (2) the precision with which the order is drawn (3) the availability of a less
onerous alternative; and 4) the duration of the order.

In addition, Eleventh Circuit has superimposed a ‘balancing of interests approach to Rule 26 ©
Id. (citations omitted)

6

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.. 263 F.3d 1304-1307 (1 Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted). The Court went on to explain,

Accordingly, where a third party seeks access to material disclosed during discovery and
covered by a protective order, the constitutional right of access, like Rule 26© requires a
showing of cause by the party seeking protection.

Id. at 1310 (emphasis added).

As discussed below, the Protective Order in this case does not apply to Thomas’ deposition.
Even if the order did apply as an initial matter, however now that a challenge has been made,
Thomas must establish good cause for the continued sealing of his deposition testimony. He
has not and cannot do so.

C. The Protective Order By Its Terms - Cannot Conceivably Encompass The Majority
Of Thomas’ Deposition Testimony.

The Protective Order allows any person to designate as confidential “such portions of his/her
deposition testimony (including exhibits) as implicate ‘Confidential’ information of the type
described”in the Protective Order. (Protective Order, attached to the Ramscys’ Opposition to
Thomas’ Motion for Protective Order, at Tab E, 2.) In claiming that his deposition should be
kept secret, Thomas relies on the general protection for information generated by the law
enforcement investigation. (Motion at 1.) This ignores the other operative term of the
Protective Order, however, which provides:

4
No Discovery Material that prior to its production in this litigation is known by the producing
party to have been available to the public shall be designated as ‘Confidential.”

(‘Protective Order, L)

Consequently, by its own terms, the Protective Order has little or no application to Thomas’
deposition. The opposition papers filed by defendants suggest that the vast majority of Thomas’
deposition apparently addressed matters published by Thomas in his book. (Defendants’
Memorandum at 3-4. ) Indeed, in despite defendants’ reliance on Paragraph 1 of the Protective
Order in their Opposition to Thomas’ Motion (Opp. at 5-6, 9-10), Thomas does not even
mention this Paragraph in his Reply, nor does he make any effort to parse out the “public”
“information contained in his Book from information - if any- that he has not already made
public. The reason is clear: Thomas’ book is replete with information “generated by the law
enforcement investigation’, much of which may have been intended to remain confidential.
Indeed, the very first sentence of the “Author’s Note” at the beginning of the book reads:

"To certain members of the Boulder Police Department, cops who still cannot speak out publicly
and who know this story all too we I, I
appreciate your continued support and the confidences you provided me in the preparation of
this book."

8

JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Author’s Note (St. Martin’s
Paperbacks 2000) In the Epilogue, Thomas attempts to justify his publication of confidential
investigative information, by claiming that the District Attorney has done the same thing:

Wben claimed I ruined the case, I responded, “What case?” According to
him, I was a “rogue cop” who had spilled all the secrets, although it was his own office that long
ago had made sure that no secret went unshared with Team Ramsey. Id. Epilogue at 403. A
quick review of Thomas’ book reveals that it is almost exclusively “information generated by
the law enforcement investigation.”’4 Thus, it is no surprise that Thomas does not attempt to
identify information from his deposition that is truly “confidential.”

Instead, Thomas’ briefs recite generalities about protective orders, and asks the Court to
protect him from further criticism by the Ramseys. (Reply at 4-9). Even assuming that a former
public official could establish “good cause” for sealing sworn testimony on the ground that
someone might criticize his conduct which is questionable, at best - Thomas invited the
Ramseys’ criticism by publishing a “behind the scenes” look into their daughter’s murder
investigation.

A copy of the cited pages is attached as Exhibit A.

As one example, Chapter 28 begins with a detailed discussion of the DNA evidence recovered
from the crime scene, and from the victim’s body. Id. at 298-99

9
He cannot now keep private the same information that he willingly publicized for profit nearly
four years ago. The Protective Order simply does not apply to Thomas’ deposition.

l. Even If The Protective Order Did Encompass Thomas’ Deposition, Thomas has
Shown No Good Cause For Its Wholesale Sealing.

The standards for establishing good cause to seal a document pursuant to a protective order
are well established:

The moving party must present a factual showing of a particular and
specific need for the protective order…. “A demonstration of good
cause embodies a showing (1) that the documents in question truly are
confidential and (2) that disclosure of the documents would cause a
‘clearly defined and very serious injury.’” “The harm must be
significant, not a mere trifle.”… Broad allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning do not
satisfy the Rule 26 © test”…

Welsh v. City & County of San Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293, 1297(ND. Cal.

1995) (citations omitted; emphasis added); see also Pansy v. Borough of

Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786-87 (3d Cir. 1994) (“Good cause is established on

showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party.

The Ramseys have identified some information which they are willing to keep secret under the
Protective Order. (Opp. At 2.) Notwithstanding this concession, Thomas must still justify to this
Court the basis for sealing those portions of the deposition. Moreover, if Thomas believed that
additional portions of his deposition should be sealed, it was his burden to specifically identify
those portions and justify the sealing as to each part. See In re Coordinated Pretrial
Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 101 F.R.D. 34. 44 (C.D. Cal. 1984). He
did not remotely meet this requirement.

10

Seeking closure. The injury must be shown with “specificity” citation and internal quotes
omitted)); Cipollone v.Liggett Group. Inc.. 785 F.2d 1108 f 3d Cir. 1986)

(“broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or reasoning , do not satisfy
the Rule 26(c) test” (citations omitted)); In re Texaco. Inc 84 13R. 14, 17 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (to
justify enforcement of the protective order, a party “must” demonstrate that “it will indeed be
harmed by disclosure” and he cannot “rely solely on conclusory statements”).6

Courts routinely have applied these limitations to reject attempts to seal depositions. For
example, in Avirgan v.Hull, 118 F.RD. 252. 234 ((D.D.C. 1987), the District Court for the
District of Columbia denied a motion for entry of a protective order excluding the press from
attending a third party witness’ deposition. Defendants argued that because they were either
subjects or targets of a current criminal investigation, press coverage of the deposition “might
jeopardize their right to a fair trial,” Id. at 254 n.4. The court rejected this argument, holding:

Thomas’s argument that “defendants have come forward with no evidence of a cognizable
interest’ in using this deposition outside the confines of this case puts the cart before the horse.
(Opp. at 4-5.) The law is clear that Thomas must first establish good cause for the sealing of
his deposition. Only then must the Ramseys – or other interested parties - come forward with
good cause for rejecting the requested sealing. Because Thomas has not met his burden, CBS
does not need to justify its objection to Thomas’ sealing request. Nevertheless, as discussed
below, there are compelling reasons for rejecting the proposed sealing of this deposition.

11

In light of the enormous publicity already generated by (related congressional hearings) and
the other judicial proceedings related to the potential indictments, any potential prejudice from
further press coverage generated by the third party’s deposition is too speculative to alone
constitute good cause.

Id. The court further explained:

It is impossible to determine the appropriate weight to give deponents concerns regarding
annoyance and harassment that media
coverage will bring without knowing what specific information will be revealed at (his)
deposition that has not already been the subject of
public and press scrutiny. To allow the protective order in advance absent such a showing
would run afoul of the balance of first
amendment interests in Rule 26 firmly approved by the Supreme Court in Seattle Times. Id. at
355. See also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National
Children’s Center, inc. 98 F 3d. 1406-1411 (D.C Cir. 1996) (finding that good cause must exist
for order limiting use of deposition transcripts); Greater Miami Baseball Club Limited
Partnership v. Selig, 955 F. Supp. 37 (5 S.D.N. Y. 1997) (permitting newspaper to intervene
and ordering unsealing of the deposition transcript of the alleged de facto commissioner of
baseball in a lawsuit by the owner of a minor league team).

Thomas falls far short of the specific, substantial and articulated showing he
must make to justify sealing his deposition. He
claims that because his testimony relates to the investigation into JonBenet Ramsey’s murder,
it therefore must be protected from disclosure. As discussed above, this exemption is
inapplicable

12

because it appears that virtually all of the information revealed in the deposition
already is public. (See Section C supra.) Even if the protective order exemption
applied, however, Thomas still has not established good cause for enforcing that
provision as it relates to his deposition. He asks, for example, that the entire
deposition be sealed, although he admits that portions of his of his testimony are not
subject to the protective order. (Reply at 4.) He also has not shown that good cause exists to
seal those portions that he claims are subject to the protective order by establishing that
revealing it publicly could harm the ongoing investigation into the murder. Indeed, in light of his
long absence from the Boulder Police Department, nearly four years and his frequent public
statements about this case, it seems unlikely that he has or could have revealed any
information that would harm the current investigation.

Thomas also complains generally about the Ramseys’ public criticism of him, but does not
explain how the public release of his deposition will add to that criticism. He provides no facts
supporting his claims of harm from disclosure of
the deposition nor does he explain why this constitutes good cause to seal the

Footnotes:

CBS notes that other courts have rejected claimed law enforcement
interests to justify sealing of investigative materials. E.g. King v. Conde, 12
F.R.D. 180, 192 (E..D.N..Y. 1988)’ Welsh supra, 887F Supp. at 1297,

13

deposition. This is not surprising. Thomas has been publicly disseminating information about
the murder investigation for the last four years. As the Third Circuit has recognized, “privacy
interests are diminished when the party seeking
Protection is a public person subject to legitimate public scrutiny.” Pansy, supra.
23 F.3d at 787 (citation omitted, emphasis added). The Third Circuit went on to
explain that “an applicant for a protective order whose chief concern is
embarrassment must demonstrate that the embarrassment will he particularly
serious.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Cipollone, supra, 785 F.2d at1121 (Saine v.
Welsh, supra, 887 E. Supp. at 1297 (same);culinary Foods Inc. v_Raychem Corp 161 F.R. D.
297 (N.D. Ill, 1993) (“a claim that public disclosure of
information will be harmful to a defendant’s reputation is not ‘good cause’ for a
protective order”). See generally Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 26:184
(May 2002).

Even apart from his role as a public official, by writing a book and marketing it, Thomas
injected himself into the controversy surrounding JonBenet

Footnotes:

8 Notably, Thomas does not offer any declarations from anyone currently
involved in the investigation to support his claim that the ongoing murder
investigation would be harmed by public release of his sworn testimony.

9 In the context of trade secrets, the Eleventh Circuit held that a sealing order
cannot be sustained unless the party advocating sealing “has consistently treated
the information as closely guarded secrets.” Chicago Tribune Co., supra, 263 F. 3d
at1313. A similar standard should be applied here. End footnotes.

14

Ramsey’s murder. Now, he wants to pick and choose what information will
become public. Moreover, he wants to prevent his sworn testimony from
becoming public, although he has divulged the the very same information in a book
and numerous television appearances. Clearly, he will not be harmed by the
release of this information.

In any event, this Court should find that there is no good cause for sealing
the deposition in light of the public interest in this information. As many courts
have recognized, “access is particularly appropriate when the subject matter of
the litigation is of special public interest. In re Agent Orange, supra, 821 F.2d
at 148 (modifying blanket protective order not supported by good cause); Welsh
supra, 887 F.. Supp. at 1302 (same). The importance to the public of information
about the conduct of the police investigation into this heinous crime cannot be
over-emphasized. As one court explained,

Lawfulness of police operations is a matter of great concern to
citizens in a democracy and protective orders must not be granted
without that public interest in mind. The parties and the court should
consider carefully the benefits and costs of a properly designed

10 One has to wonder whether his reticence at having his testimony publicly
Disclosed is caused by his preference that interested parties purchase his book,
rather than reading in the newspaper about his testimony.

11. Thomas’ suggestion that he will be harmed because the Ramseys have
another case pending against him is no longer a consideration, since that case has
been dismissed.

Alert | IP
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
08-23-02, 06:32 PM (EST)

1. "part 2"
In response to message #0


15

protective order. “Routinely” issuing protective orders…will not
necessarily promote justice or the proper balance of interests…

King, supra, 121 F.R.D. at 190.

These considerations apply with special force to this deposition. The murder
of JonBenet Ramsey left the nation outraged and terrified that a young girl could
be murdered in her own house. The fact that the murder is unsolved - despite the
commitment of tremendous public and private resources for more than five years
only heightens the public’s interest in the investigation and the reasons for its
failure. Thomas openly has attacked the Boulder Police Department and District
Attorneys’ Office for their investigation of the murder. The public demands and deserves to
understand the basis for Thomas accusations against the Police Department and the Ramseys,
and to obtain information explaining why the investigation thus far has been unsuccessful.
Thomas’ deposition – given under the penalty of perjury - is one of the public’s only sources to
evaluate the very public statements Thomas has made since the publication of his book in
1998.
Because the public’s interest in access to this deposition far outweighs the general
and conclusory claims of harm asserted by Thomas, this Court should reject
his Motion.
16

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, CBS respectfully requests that this Court grant
the request to intervene, and deny Thomas’ Motion for Protective Order of Non-
Party Witness Steve Thomas in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of August, 2002

Cynthia L. Counts
COUNTS & ASSOCIATES
Atlanta, Georgia

Attorneys for Non-Party Media Organization
CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of August, 2002

Kelli L. Sager (pro hac applications pending)

Rochelle L. Wilcox (pro hac applications pending)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Los Angeles, California

Attorneys for Non-Party Media Organization
CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

Of Counsel:
CBS BROADCASTING INC.
Susanna Lowry
Anthony Bongiomo

CBS BROADCASTING INC.
New York, NY
Attorneys for Non-Party Media Organization
CBS Broadcasting Inc.

Part One: Judge Carnes refused to unseal Steve Thomas' deposition.

She also denied Steve Thomas's request for a protective order to keep his deposition under seal.

If ST wants it to remain sealed he will have to give her "good cause" - he needs to file a brief within 20 days proving to her it should be sealed. Then CBS will have 20 days to argue his statements. ST's attorneys will have 20 days to respond to their response and if CBS still wants the deposition opened, they can ask again and she will rule.

Ping pong.

The Court allowed Thomas 20 days to file "a particularized motion for good cause, explaining why specified sections of the testimony are entitled to remain sealed."

In a footnote that suggests that the Court may not be inclined to accept Thomas's statements alone in support of a contention that revealing portions of his deposition publicly would harm the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, the Court noted, "Depending on the substance of any motion made by movant Thomas, the Court may also seek the input of current law enforcement and investigative officials who are responsible for the investigation of JonBenet Ramsey's murder."

Old story
Attorneys move to block release of deposition

By Pam Regensberg
Camera Staff Writer

Attorneys for a former Boulder detective involved in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation
moved
Tuesday to block his deposition in a related case from becoming public.
An attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey promised to fight Steve Thomas' assertion that the
deposition,
conducted Sept. 21 in Denver, is confidential.
L. Lin Wood, based in Atlanta, also said Tuesday that depositions of high-ranking officials, including
Police
Chief Mark Beckner and former District Attorney Alex Hunter, involved in the nearly 5-year-old
homicide are
to come.
The deposition is part of a lawsuit filed by former Boulder County journalist Chris Wolf against the
Ramseys. In their book about the 1996 murder of their daughter, John and Patsy Ramsey named Wolf
and
a former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, as suspects in the case.
Wood termed Thomas' attempt at keeping the deposition private the "height of hypocrisy" and
something
the federal court in Georgia will not tolerate.
"This is a man who has written a book accusing my clients of murder," Wood said. "Steve Thomas does
not want the public to know the truth. When truth comes out, the people who were attacking the
Ramseys
want to run from the truth."
Wood said his clients want everything put on the table and the murder file made public.
In that vein, Wood has subpoenaed Thomas' files related to the investigation, including some Boulder
police reports related to the murder case.
Thomas was out of the state and could not be reached for comment. His attorney in Atlanta, Sean R.
Smith, did not return a telephone call to the Daily Camera.
Thomas was one of several investigators on the Ramsey case. The 6-year-old was found beaten and
strangled in the basement of her family's home Dec. 26, 1996. No one has been charged with the
crime.
Thomas, who resigned from the Boulder Police Department in 1998, wrote a book about the
investigation,
alleging that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. The Ramseys filed a libel lawsuit against Thomas in
March.
In a one-page fax to Wood's office on Tuesday, Thomas' attorneys in Los Angeles said their client's
deposition is confidential based on sections of the confidentiality order entered by U.S. District Court
Judge Julie E. Carnes in Atlanta.
"It is my clear belief that when the public learns about his testimony, they will realize Steve Thomas ...
would have been fired in 1997, probably prosecuted, without question disgraced and would not have
been in
a position to write a book and make hundreds of thousand of dollars," Wood said.

October 17, 2001

ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF

Plaintiff

v.

JOHN RAMSEY and
PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

1:00-CV-1187-JEC

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Movant Steve Thomas’ Motion for Protective Order
<45> and Motion By Proposed Intervenor CBS Broadcasting Inc. to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing
Movant’s Motion For Protective Order <82>.

Movant Steve Thomas was deposed by the parties during the course of discovery in this case. Prior to his testimony,
this Court entered a Stipulation and Protective Order <35> that provided for a procedure whereby parties and
non-party witnesses could request that certain discovery material be designated as confidential, including among
other things “information generated by the law enforcement investigation of the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey,” (Id.
at 1 (e)). Pursuant to that provision of the Protective Order, movant Thomas has moved that his deposition, in its
entirety, be deemed confidential and not be disclosed publicly.

In a sealed response—sealed because the defendants cited to portions of movant’s testimony that has been sealed
pending resolution of this motion—defendants have agreed that a small portion of the testimony is properly made
confidential, pursuant to the Order, but have disagreed with movant’s blanket assertion of this privilege as to the
entire deposition testimony. (Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. For Protective Order <47>.) Rather, although defendants concede
that pages 10, 279-83, and 326-27 should remain confidential, they object to movant’s request that the remainder of
the deposition not be made public. In his Reply, movant discusses very little the reasons why he has shown good
cause to keep confidential his entire testimony. (Reply in Supp. of Mot. For Protective Order of Non-Party Witness
Steve Thomas <51>.) Instead, most of the discussion focuses on movant’s concern that defendants were exploiting
their subpoena power to depose movant in an effort to further defendants’ purportedly vast “media campaign”
against movant. (Id. at 5.) According to movant, defendants had mounted this campaign, in part, to aid them in an
80 million dollar libel suit that they had filed against movant. (Id.) In short, movant seeks to prevent such use being
made of testimony that defendants obtained through a court-ordered process.

The Court agrees with defendants’ contention that movant’s blanket assertion of confidentiality does not comply with
the requirement of the Protective Order that he show good cause. Moreover, the Court notes that defendants and
movant have now recently, on August 6, 2002, settled the litigation in which the Ramsey defendants had sued
movant. See Ramsey v. Thomas 1:01-CV-0801 (N.D. GA.) (Hunt, J.) at <31>. That being the case, the primary
reason for movant’s desire to keep the testimony confidential—his wish that the defendants not be allowed to use
this testimony to poison a potential jury pool prior to trial—may have now disappeared.

Accordingly, the primary justification for movant’s motion perhaps having now vanished and movant having failed to
show a particularized good cause for the sealing of his entire testimony, but instead having requested merely a
blanket order of sealing, based on a generalized justification, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE movant’s
Motion for Protective Order <45>. The Court makes this Order without prejudice to movant’s right to file, within
twenty (20) days, a particularized motion for good cause, explaining why specified sections of the testimony are
entitled to remain sealed. In the event that movant files such a motion, both plaintiff and defendants should be
prepared to respond, within twenty (20) days thereafter, with their position in this matter. As to CBS Broadcasting
Inc.’s Motion to Intervene <82>, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE that motion. In the event that movant
Thomas does file a renewed motion for protective order, CBS may again seek intervention status, and shall do so
within ten (10) days of the deadline for the filing of movant’s reply brief on any renewed motion.

Footnote : Depending on the substance of any motion made by movant Thomas, the Court may also seek the input
of current law enforcement and investigative officials who are responsible for the investigation of JonBenet Ramsey’s
murder.

SO ORDERED, this 11th day of September, 2002.

JULIE E. CARNES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

certain discovery material be designated as confidential,

Thomas wants his entire deposition deemed confidential

The Ramseys and Lin Wood agreed that a small portion of the testimony is properly confidential but believe that the rest of the deposition should be made public.

Thomas fought to keep it confidential but the judge said he didn't have good reasons why his entire testimony needed to be sealed.

The judge felt that Thomas was whining that the Ramseys were just looking to make his testimony public so they might use his words against him in the lawsuit they had against him. BUT, since that lawsuit has been settled, the judge found that whine not justified at this point in time.

The judge is giving ST 20 days to let her know why "specified sections of the testimony" might rightfully remain sealed.

If Thomas doesn't respond in 20 days, CBS can ask for the whole thing to be released.

If Thomas DOES respond within 20 days, they lawyers for CBS and Lin Wood will both have 20 days to argue why those parts should NOT be sealed. Then the judge will respond to that.

Finally, the judge may want to talk to LE about some parts that might need to be sealed to protect the investigation.

I'd love to read ST's deposition. Love it!

Obviously the information would be coming in too late to include it in the October 4th program. I believe CBS will get a lot of the deposition unsealed but don't know how CBS would get it out unless they understood that there was interest - enough to go with another program, maybe near the anniversary.

The thing is that people need to tell the networks what they want to see on the programs. I have never been real big on letter campaigns, but if CBS does get a hold of that document, I think it will be very helpful if we all write to CBS and let them know we would like to hear that story.

First, let's see if they get it - - then we can post the addresses.

The lawyers filed it on the 1st.

Now the attorneys for both sides have 20 days to respond to his motion.

Surely neither Lin Wood nor Darnay Hoffman would support his motion to keep that deposition sealed.

I hope the judge releases the depostion soon - - it is time everyone knew if there WAS an actual lynch mob out there doing all they could to "nail the parents" regardless of what the evidence was. I believe that is what will come out when the deposition is finally released.

Let the truth be told - - I don't believe it would hurt the Ramseys. I think it would show the BPD focused on the parents and did NOT do a thorough investigation.

On another front, we are all still waiting to see what the judge is going to say about the Wolf case - will it be tossed or will there be a trial? That judge could come back with an answer any day, any week, any month.....

Personally I think the case should be tossed. The FBI, CBI and US Secret Service said Patsy was a 4.5 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being NO WAY! They had the note, they had many samples - - NYL had questionable exemplars and a copy of a copy of the ransom note. I don't trust their findings. The FBI, CBI and US Secret Service would have favored the prosecution if they could have.