Several media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and all the major broadcast networks have asked U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to remove the gag order in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The Jones case has been plagued with leaks of confidential material -- including the deposition of President Clinton and signed affidavit of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky that sparked massive controversy. The news organizations asked the court to allow public access to case documents and argued that the original order by Judge Wright bars access to what should be public documents.

Pointing out that information about the case has already been leaked to the media, they argue in this February 4, 1998 motion that the inability to publicly verify information in the case "promotes misinformation, speculation, innuendo and rumor." If the documents were public, they argue, it would help to insure that reports which are currently impossible to verify are in fact legitimate.

They also claim that the release of the sealed documents will not infringe on the rights of either Jones or Clinton to a fair trial, and that the current restriction "interferes with the public's right to obtain information."

Movants Pulitzer Publishing Company; The New York Times Company; Associated Press; USA Today, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.; Cable News Network, Inc.; Newsday, Inc.; National Broadcasting Company, Inc.; CBS Inc.; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; Time Inc.; Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. and The Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press ("Movants") move for leave to intervene in this proceeding for the sole and limited purpose of challenging this Court's Confidentiality Order dated October 27, 1997 ("Confidentiality Order"). Movants further request that this Court rescind or modify the Confidentiality Order and that it lift the restrictions which impede Movants rights to obtain information concerning the discovery in this cause.

In support of this Motion, Movants state:

1. Pulitzer Publishing Company owns various news media outlets, including a daily newspaper published in St. Louis, Missouri and elsewhere known as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The New York Times Company owns various media, including a daily newspaper published in New York and internationally circulated known as The New York Times. Associated Press is a cooperative association of newspaper publishers and television and radio broadcasters throughout the United States. USA Today is a daily newspaper, published and circulated throughout the United States by Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. Cable News Network, Inc. creates, produces and distributes nationally and worldwide 24 hour television news programming services. Newsday, Inc. owns a daily newspaper published in New York known as Newsday. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. produces network news programming which is distributed to various affiliates, and it owns 12 television stations which produce their own news programs. NBC also produces and distributes news and information programming through its MSNBC cable channel and business news through its CNBC cable channel. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. operates a television network and distributes news programming to various affiliates, and either directly or through its parent, CBS Corporation, owns 14 television stations, 77 radio stations and several cable television networks. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. owns and operates ABC News, a national news gathering and news broadcasting organization. Time Inc. is the largest publisher of general circulations magazines in the United States, and publishes, among others, TIME, FORTUNE, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, PEOPLE and LIFE. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. publishes the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a daily newspaper in Little Rock, Arkansas. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated association of print and broadcast journalists dedicated to defending and promoting the newsgathering and news reporting rights of the news media. Each of the Movants is a corporation, or association as indicated, in good standing.

2. As members of the news media, each Movant has a direct and substantial interest in promoting and preserving its rights and the rights of the public to be informed about and report on the proceedings in this civil case. Such rights have not been and will not be adequately represented by existing parties to this cause.

3. This is a civil action for money damages alleging sexual harassment by the defendant, the President of the Unites States, at an earlier time when he served as Governor of Arkansas.

4. On October 27, 1997, this Court entered its blanket Confidentiality Order which: (i) seals discovery matters and pleadings filed with the Court, (ii) restricts the dissemination of unfiled discovery, and (iii) prohibits the parties and their counsel from commenting regarding such matters.

5. As written, the Confidentiality Order restrains discussion of and restricts access to ALL discovery in this case. It effects a wholesale, blanket restriction on the litigants and their counsel and prohibits them from disclosing them from disclosing not only the substance of discovery, but even the most basic information about discovery, such as who is to be deposed, when and why. The Order fails to include any specific findings, but is premised solely upon generally articulated concerns that pre-trial publicity concerning discovery would prejudice the parties' fair trial rights and that such potential prejudice outweighs the public interest in access to pre-trial discovery proceedings. The Order was entered by this Court without any notice or opportunity to be heard by Movants or other interested members of the media or public.

6. Because the Confidentiality Order requires the sealing of discovery matters filed with the Court, the Order contravenes both the common law and constitutional presumption that court records and proceedings are public property. Closure of judicial records is appropriate only where a compelling governmental interest exists, only where it is likely to be effective in preserving against the perceived harm and only after considering less restrictive alternatives.

7. Because the Confidentiality Order prohibits the parties from disseminating any discovery materials, the Order is unfounded given that "good cause" does not exist for any protective order restricting disclosure of discovery materials. There has been no specific demonstration that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury to the fair trial rights of the parties.

8. Because the Confidentiality Order restricts the litigants from speaking out about discovery in this case, the Order operates as a gag on speech and interferes with the public's right to obtain information. Such restraints can only be justified in cases of serious and imminent harm to the administration of justice. Further, such restraints cannot be imposed if they will not be effective in preserving the compelling interest at stake.

9. Regardless of the grounds and justification for the Confidentiality Order at the time it was entered, the public interest in discovery proceedings has been enhanced significantly by recent allegations of possible perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the Executive Branch of the federal government. The public has a legitimate right and compelling interest in being informed about such serious matters. This right substantially outweighs any cause which previously existed for the secrecy of pre-trial discovery matters. Indeed, this interest is all the more compelling in light of the vast array of speculation about discovery materials -- speculation which entirely undercuts the very purpose of the Confidentiality Order.

10. The Confidentiality Order has not been effective in protecting against pre-trial publicity. Because of the nature of the claims and the parties, and more significantly because of recent revelations independent of this litigation, pre-trial publicity continues. Accordingly, the Confidentiality Order is not presently likely to advance the interests initially articulated by the Court as grounds for its entry. To the contrary, instead of reducing the possibility of prejudice, the Order is potentially promoting prejudice because by limiting access to the actual facts concerning pre-trial proceedings herein, the Order, without any intention to do so, promotes misinformation, speculation, innuendo and rumor.

11. In a recent filing in this Court requesting an earlier trial setting, counsel for the President attacked media reports as based upon "gossip, innuendo and hearsay," while at the same time implicitly acknowledging that the present secrecy governing these proceedings deprived "the public of the means to evaluate the credibility of the information." Given the magnitude of recent revelations there is absolutely no way to eliminate the "anonymous sources and rumor" cited in the President's motion short of removing the secrecy by which it is fueled.

12. Because of the of the issues involved in the case, Movants respectfully request oral argument.

WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully pray that this Court (a) grant them leave to intervene in this proceeding for the sole and limited purpose of challenging the Confidentiality Order; (b) rescind the Confidentiality Order; and (c) alternatively, release all restrictions on the disclosure and discussion of the discovery materials previously sealed under the Order or determine those materials, which, in light of their peculiar sensitivity overcome the presumption of openness -- a presumption particularly apt in a case of such keen public interest.