DISCOVERY CASE OUTLINE
©Richard E. Best 1999-2006 All rights reserved
|
DISCOVERY
|
CAL. LEGAL RESOURCES |
DISCOVERY
REFEREE |
FEDERAL RESOURCES |
CONTACT E-discovery |
REPORTER'S
PRIVILEGE
SHIELD ACT [Ev.C.§1070 / FIRST AMENDMENT
See also CCP §1986.1 re waiver & contempt
Alternatives: Shield Law, 1st Amendment
General references
Purpose of privilege
Nature of protection:
Burden of proof to establish privilege on newsman
Protected persons
Protected material
Confidentiality requirement: promise of confid. not required
First Amendment [qualified reporter's privilege]
Application to California
Nature of Protection
Scope of protectionFactors for determining if information is protected
All newsgathering for public dissemination; intent of gatherer
Confidential sources
Unpublisheed information
Books
Cal. Constitution Articel 1, sec.2(b)
Ev.C. §1070
Delaney v. Superior Court(1990), 50 Cal.3d 785 [leg.& case hist.]
KSDO v. Superior Court(1982), 136 Cal.App.3d 375 [re leg history & limited protection from contempt; not privilege]
Farr v. Superior Court (1971), 22 Cal.App.3d 60 [limited scope recognized]
Rosato v. Superior Court (1975), 51 Cal.App.3d 190 [broad interp]
See also CCP §1986.1 [enacted 2000] reJOURNALIST'S TESTIMONY UNDER SUBPOENA NOT WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
MINIMUM 5 DAY NOTICE
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT CONTEMPT
Protect free flow of information vital for informed democracy
DNC v. McCord (DDC 1973), 356 F.Supp.1394 [Watergate; free flow of information depends on ability to gather news and on source protection; 1st Amendment free speech vital for informed democracy]
KSDO v. Superior Court (1982), 136 Cal.App.3d 375
Delaney v. Superior Court(1990), 50 Cal.3d 785 [protect investigative reporting]
Schoen I, (1993), 5 F.3d 1289
Cannot be held in contempt;
Not a privilege [ct can ord prod & award other sanctions such as default J for failure to produce]Delaney v. Superior Court at p.797 fn6
KSDO v. Superior Court
Mitchell v. Superior Court(1984),p.274
New York Times Co v. Superior Court p.456, 463[monetary sanctions against non-party per CCP §1992; dictum says sep c/a may be "required" at p.464]Can be overcome by competing right to fair trial in criminal action
Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 805 [B/P on def.fn.20 p.807]
New York Times Co.v. Superior Court (1990), p.456, 462[not in normal PI case, but possible in civil proceeding]
Broad interpretation of "privilege"
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Superior Court (1984), 154 Cal.App.3d 14
Delaney v.Superior Court (1990), 50 Cal.3d 785
Rosato v. Superior Court (1975), 51 Cal.App.3d 190 [contempt; broad interp]
Hammarley v. Superior Court (1979), 89 Cal.App.3d 388 [contempt]
Burden of proof to
establish
privilege on newsman
New York Times Co v. Superior Court (1990), 51 Cal.3d 453, p.459
Delaney v. Superior Court(1990), p.807 fn20 [B/P on def re need to protect right to fair trial]
Persons connected w/periodicals; confine to???
"person…connected with …periodical…." Ev.C.§1070
? press assoc. …wire service …?Unemployed free lancer
People v. Von Villas 10 CA4th 201, 232 cert den 508 US 975 (1993)
Non-parties provided greater protection
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990), 51 Cal.3d 453,461 [absolute immuniy = privilege]
Mitchell v. Superior Court(1984),
Protected material
[Ev.C.§1070]
source of information
procured while so connected/employed
for publicationunpublished information
obtained while gathering information
for communication to public
Confidentiality requirement: promise of confidentiality not required
Delaney v. Superior Court(1990), 50 Cal.3d 785, 800,805
New York Times Co. v Superior Court (1990), 51 Cal.3d 453
FIRST AMENDMENT
[qualified reporter's privilege]
Application to California
Delaney v. Superior Court(1990), p.795[Bransburg unclear & Mitchell doesn't estab qual priv.]
Mitchell v. Superior Court(1984), 37 Cal.3d 268
KSDO v. Superior Court(1982)
Bransburg v. Hayes (1972), 408 U.S. 665 [qualified privilege for newsgathering ?]
Rancho Publications v. Superior Court (1999), 68 Cal.App.4th 1538 [identity of anonymous authors of paid "advertorial" involving core political speech protected]
Factors for determining if information is protected
Nature of litigation & whether reporter is party
Direct relevanceDeny disclosure unless info goes to heart of case
Exhaustion of alternative sources
Importance of confidentiality in particular caseInformation of great public importance
Substantial risk of harm to sourcePrima facie showing of falsity in defamation case not essential but may tip balance
All newsgathering for public dissemination; intent of gatherer
Schoen I
Silkwood [motion picture documentary
Confidential sources
Unpublisheed information
BooksSchoen v. Schoen (1993), 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 [fn.9 notes not appd revelation of sources allows pursuit of alternatives w/o notes or memo; allow some disc from def. in libel cases
Schoen II
Voluntary disclosure / tender
Dalitz v. Penthouse International (1985), 168 Cal.App.3d 468, 480 [cross complaint tendered issue]
See also CCP §1986.1 re journalist's testimony under subpoena not waiver of immunitcy
