The press and public should have access to pretrial discovery documents in civil litigation when matters of public concern are at issue. Recently, the Supreme Court expanded the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings, and based on that, some lower courts have granted access to civil trials. In its decisions establishing public right of access to criminal court proceedings, the Supreme Court established that (1) the requested right of access must be rooted in judicial history, and (2) access must serve important public interests, particularly the opportunity for the public to assess how well the judicial system functions. Access to civil discovery documents meets both these criteria, and therefore the public and press should have a First Amendment right to examine such material. Courts refusing access to pretrial discovery documents have relied on the Supreme Court's opinion in "Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart.""Rhinehart" arose from an action for defamation and invasion of privacy filed by the head of a "spiritualist church." But "Rhinehart" is inapplicable to most cases in which access has been sought. Several courts have recognized that public interest demands access in certain cases, and this view should be adopted widely. Continued secrecy prevents the press and public from learning about matters which may affect them directly. (Six pages of footnotes are included.) (AEW)