Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. v. General Electric Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
854 F.2d 900 (1988)

- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, the Dayton Power and Light Company, and Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company (the utilities) (plaintiffs) jointly undertook to build a nuclear power plant. The utilities brought an action against General Electric Company and Sargent & Lundy Engineers (defendants) for breach of contract, later amended to include fraud and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, regarding the design and construction of the plant. Recognizing the need for discovery confidentiality, the parties negotiated a protective order that protected documents classified as confidential or highly confidential by the producing party. The order restricted the nonproducing party’s use of those documents to the prosecution or defense of the current proceeding or other proceedings arising in connection with the plant. Any reference to highly confidential documents in court filings had to have appropriate markings and be filed separately under seal. The district court issued an order mandating a summary jury trial, closing the proceeding to the media and public and demanding confidentiality of the proceedings. The Cincinnati Post and others (the press) (intervenors) sought to intervene in the underlying action to challenge the order closing the summary trial. The district court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the press had no First Amendment right of access to summary jury trials or settlement techniques. In addition, public access was not significant to the function of the summary trial, which was nonbinding and had no effect on the merits, other than settlement. The district court amended this order to restrict communications between mock jurors and the media and public until the conclusion of the case and to require that the list of prospective and actual jurors remain sealed until conclusion. Less than two months after the summary trial concluded, the parties settled, and the district court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court continued the gag orders and confidentiality of documents. The press appealed the district court’s orders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keith, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Edwards, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.