Judge orders Oregonian to destroy Nike lawsuit documents

On March 18, 2025, a federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a publishing gag that would require The Oregonian to return or destroy documents it had inadvertently received related to a gender discrimination lawsuit against Nike.

The Oregonian was part of a coalition of news outlets that had asked the court hearing the discrimination case to unseal and remove redactions from documents filed in the lawsuit. While meeting with Oregonian reporter Matthew Kish in January 2024, an attorney for the plaintiffs mistakenly sent him unredacted versions of some of the documents filed under seal.

Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo ordered Jan. 26, 2024, that the daily newspaper agree “not to disseminate that information in any way; and to destroy any copies in its possession.” After a district court voided the ruling and ordered that arguments be heard, Russo reversed her decision a month later. District Judge Marco Hernández affirmed the ruling April 9, The Oregonian reported.

Attorneys for Nike appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in March 2025 that because The Oregonian was an intervenor in the case, it is also bound by court orders sealing records.

“Even when a party intervenes in a case after the resolution of certain issues, and for only a limited purpose, the intervenor has the ability to challenge prior rulings and orders through motions to reopen or reconsider,” U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote. “By entering into the litigation here, The Oregonian obtained the same rights and obligations that any other party would obtain.”

The case was sent back to the lower court for additional action, which could include preventing further reporting on the documents. The Oregonian published a three-part series on the documents in January.

In a statement emailed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Oregonian editor Therese Bottomly said, “I find the decision baffling and quite troubling on First Amendment grounds. We simply intervened in a very limited way on behalf of the public good and should not have to set aside our constitutional rights to do so.

“We are considering all of our legal options,” Bottomly added.

In a reversal of an earlier decision, a federal judge ruled on Feb. 28, 2024, that The Oregonian did not have to return documents it had inadvertently received related to a gender discrimination lawsuit against Nike.

In the ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo said the Portland, Oregon-based newspaper’s First Amendment rights protected its ability to report on the documents. Russo also struck down Nike’s request for discovery of the circumstances under which The Oregonian obtained the documents, saying that was “irrelevant to the Oregonian’s First Amendment rights.”

On Jan. 26, Russo had ordered The Oregonian to not disseminate the documents and to return them to Nike’s lawyer, who sent the documents to the paper accidentally. The paper appealed the decision three days later, arguing that Russo did not allow the paper to make arguments in court.

The publishing gag was withdrawn on Jan. 30 by another judge, who sent the case back to Russo. In the new hearing, The Oregonian was able to make its case in favor of keeping the documents.

Therese Bottomly, editor and vice president of content for The Oregonian and its website, OregonLive, said in an email to the U.S Press Freedom Tracker, “We are pleased with the magistrate judge’s strong and unequivocal ruling on our First Amendment rights. The decision upholds the principle that a free press is foundational to our democracy.”