Times asks high court to reject review in battle with P-I

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

The Seattle Times Co. yesterday urged the state Supreme Court to reject The Hearst Corp.'s request for a review of an Appeals Court decision in the legal fight between the two companies.

The Times also said "the public interest" requires King County Superior Court to deal with all issues Hearst raised in its April 2003 lawsuit rather than have the case reviewed "piecemeal" by various courts.

The document is the latest in an exchange of filings after a state Court of Appeals in March reversed a 2003 Superior Court decision. Superior Court Judge Greg Canova had blocked The Times' effort to force negotiations that could either shut down Hearst's Post-Intelligencer or end the companies' joint-operating agreement (JOA). Hearst filed its request for Supreme Court review in April.

In its 28-page filing yesterday, The Times said the unanimous decision by a three-judge Appeals Court panel had "properly applied settled precedent" in contract law in rejecting Hearst's claim on one issue in the case.

Hearst's suit seeks to prohibit The Times from citing financial losses under the JOA in 2000, 2001 and 2002 to trigger a provision setting an 18-month negotiating window to shut down one paper or end the JOA.

Hearst has said either outcome would mean the end of its 141-year-old paper.

Times officials have blamed the P-I's dwindling circulation for causing The Times' own losses under the JOA. They say changing market conditions cannot support two daily papers in Seattle.

In September, Canova ruled for Hearst in its challenge to the legitimacy of loss claims in 2000 (later applied to 2001 as well). But the appeals panel overruled Canova and remanded the case back to him. Attorneys for both papers have agreed to stop the clock on the 18-month negotiating window until all issues in Hearst's lawsuit are settled, including a separate challenge to the 2002 losses.

The Times' filing yesterday said that after litigation is resolved, the papers have agreed to a 12-month negotiating window. In any event, some legal experts say the agreement would allow the P-I to publish well into 2007.

In its filing, The Times contended the appeals court correctly rejected Hearst's claim that actions by parties in a contract could overrule the contract's specific language. Outside factors, such as evidence of intent, can only be used to "illuminate the words of the agreement," not contradict them, The Times said.

Hearst has contended that the 2000 losses, because they were caused by a newspaper strike, should not be considered because of another contract clause that deals with issues beyond other parties' control.

The Times also said in its filing yesterday that public-policy considerations cannot "modify or contradict a clear agreement."

The Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town, an ad hoc citizens group granted intervenor status in the case by Canova, has argued that public policy favors continued publication of the P-I.

"While it may be preferable in the abstract to have two Seattle daily newspapers," Times attorneys argued, "no 'public policy' requires that The Times subsidize that preference or remain yoked to an underperforming P-I indefinitely."

Dmitri Iglitzin, an attorney for the committee, said public policy does not allow the Times to manufacture any argument it wants to get out of the JOA. Instead, he contended, it "requires The Times to continue the JOA under these unique circumstances."

Traditionally, the state Supreme Court decides whether to take cases in the late spring or summer and begins hearing arguments in the next fall.

Bill Richards is a freelance writer hired on a special contract by The Seattle Times to cover events involving the joint-operating agreement with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He can be reached at brichards@seattletimes.com