UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN ) ) ) ) ) v. SAFARILAND, LLC., ET AL. NO. 2:13-CV-174 ORDER The defendant has filed a “Motion to Restrict Exatrjudicial Party Statements,” doc. 45. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. If the assertions in the defendant’s memorandum brief are taken at face value, it would seem that this case has seized the attention of the national press, including one or more cable news networks. According to the defendant, the plaintiff told defendant’s attorney that he had been contacted by some of these media outlets, which presumably were seeking to ask him questions about the upcoming trial. Again, according to defendant’s brief, plaintiff himself is concerned that any advance publicity regarding the trial could have an adverse effect on potential negotiations. Similarly, if the statements of a litigant or witness get widespread coverage immediately before a trial, obtaining an impartial jury becomes more difficult. The court is aware that restricting pretrial statements pits the First Amendment against the litigants’ right to a fair trial. It is not an easy line to walk. What makes this case different is that the plaintiff is representing himself. Rule Case 2:13-cv-00174-JRG-DHI Document 47 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 302 83.2(a) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Tennessee strictly limits what a lawyer in a case can publicly say about a case. Defendant suggests in its brief that since plaintiff is representing himself, he is not subject to this restriction. The court is not sure that it agrees with the defendant; at the very least a pro se plaintiff is a hybrid, and he should not be able to do what an opposing party cannot do merely because the opponent is represented by a lawyer. The court at first was inclined to specify what either party could tell the press if contacted for a statement, but in retrospect that is calculated to cause nothing but problems. For the sake of both parties, especially the plaintiff, it is better that they say nothing to the press before the trial. After the trial, of course, either party may say whatever they wish, subject to any agreement they may reach between themselves. The motion, doc. 45, is GRANTED. SO ORDERED: s/ Dennis H. Inman United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 2:13-cv-00174-JRG-DHI Document 47 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 303