Newspapers seek quick appeal review

Saturday, October 25, 2003

By DAN RICHMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Both Seattle daily newspapers yesterday urged quick review of a court ruling thwarting The Seattle Times' attempts to end the joint operating agreement, or JOA, without which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says it can't survive.

In the first of two steps in Washington's appeals process, attorneys for the papers asked Commissioner James Verellen to let a three-judge panel reconsider a Sept. 25 ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Greg Canova.

Canova ruled that The Times' losses in 2000, which were caused by an extraordinary event -- the 2000-01 newspaper strike -- can't be counted toward the three straight years of losses needed to end the JOA.

If Verellen grants the papers' request, the second step would be for the panel of Washington Court of Appeals judges to perform the actual review. They would do so in the same One Union Square courtroom where arguments were heard yesterday.

Verellen, who is a lawyer but not a judge, said he will try to make a decision by the end of next week. A denial of the request might itself be appealable, said Seattle Times attorney Monty Gray.

If he grants the request, the appeals court would set a date for oral arguments, possibly within several months, and would establish a schedule of briefs to be filed before then.

Meanwhile, Canova's ruling stands, and an 18-month countdown toward the automatic end of the JOA, which was triggered when The Times tried to end the agreement in April, has been suspended until the end of the litigation, including all appeals.

During yesterday's arguments, Times attorney Gray maintained that Canova erred, chiefly by relying on a 1990 Washington Supreme Court case, Berg v. Hudesman, rather than several cases that have modified the ruling in that case.

And, Gray argued, even if Canova didn't commit errors, another rule allows the rules to be waived or altered where the interests of justice so require.

The Hearst Corp., which owns the P-I, supported The Times' bid for expedited review, saying it would help avoid uncertainty that could lead to staff departures and impede hiring.

It took that position earlier this month in exchange for an agreement by The Times to apply whatever conclusions are finally reached about its losses in 2000 to 2001. Hearst says The Times' losses in those two years, and in 2002, are legally insufficient to end the JOA.

But at the same time, Hearst yesterday maintained that there is no basis for an appeal.

The Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town, a self-styled citizens group that has intervened in the case, said Canova made no error. Such a position, attorney Dmitri Iglitzin admitted, "creates some real challenges in terms of whether review is appropriate." But, like Hearst, the committee is not resisting the granting of review.

Although the papers' owners are clearly talking, as evidenced by their agreement on the expedited review earlier this month, representatives for the companies yesterday refused to comment on whether negotiations are under way to settle the suit.

P-I reporter Dan Richman can be reached at 206-448-8032 or danrichman@seattlepi.com

Add P-I Business headlines to