A judge refused yesterday to order the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to return court documents related to the divorce case of billionaire publisher Richard M. Scaife and his wife.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Alan Hertzberg agreed with the Post-Gazette's contention that the newspaper had First Amendment rights to retain and publish information about the divorce case, even though it had been sealed by court order.

Mr. Scaife's attorneys argued that the Post-Gazette's access and use of the documents amounted to criminal theft.

Judge Hertzberg's ruling in favor of the Post-Gazette apparently ended a public, spirited debate over news media rights, which intruded upon a divorce case that is officially private but has had public bursts of nastiness.

Mr. Scaife, the publisher of the Tribune-Review, and his wife, Margaret Ritchie Battle Scaife, are feuding over how much of his vast family fortune she should receive.

Documents of their divorce battle were unavailable to the public -- by order of Judge Hertzberg, at the request of both parties -- until an apparent error in the Allegheny County prothonotary's office made them accessible on its Web site for several days in late August. A Post-Gazette reporter obtained the information at that time, and the newspaper published a story Sept. 16 describing the financial details of the case and of Mr. Scaife's holdings.

Mr. Scaife's lawyers filed court papers Friday demanding that the Post-Gazette and reporter Dennis Roddy return any case documents obtained by the prothonotary's error. The newspaper, maintaining the information was of public interest, responded over the weekend by posting key portions of the documents on its own Web site.

In yesterday's court hearing, H. Yale Gutnick, Mr. Scaife's lawyer, contended that the Post-Gazette's access of documents it knew to be sealed was illegal, similar to a burglar entering the judge's home if he left the door open.

"It has thumbed its nose at this court with a smirk on its face," Mr. Gutnick said, suggesting the Post-Gazette was merely acting out of competitive spite against Mr. Scaife.

W. Thomas McGough Jr., the Post-Gazette's lawyer, maintained that the newspaper bore no responsibility to ignore documents that had become publicly available, and the court had no right to inhibit its use of them.

Based on various court rulings, Mr. McGough said, "there may not be sanctions against a newspaper for publishing information that comes into its hands."

If a mistake was made by the prothonotary's office, he said. "that's where Mr. Gutnick's wrath ought to be directed. ... This was not unauthorized access to anything."

Judge Hertzberg recommended to a lawyer representing Prothonotary Michael Lamb that further steps be taken to keep sealed records off its Web site. But the judge agreed with the Post-Gazette that the First Amendment prevented him from taking any steps that would restrict its use of the documents it obtained from the prothonotary's Web site.

He also concurred with the Post-Gazette's insistence that yesterday's court proceedings be open to the public. Lawyers for both Mr. and Mrs. Scaife had asked to keep the discussions closed, as is consistent with the rest of the divorce case proceedings.