11 Cited authorities

Von Bulow by Auersperg v. Von Bulow
811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 468 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the burden of establishing all the essential elements" of a privilege claim is not met "by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions"
United States v. Burke
700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 198 times
Concluding that there is "no legally-principled reason for drawing a distinction between civil and criminal cases when considering whether the reporter's interest in confidentiality should yield to the moving party's need for probative evidence."
Gonzales v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
186 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 79 times
Holding that nonconfidential materials are protected under the journalist's privilege because there is a "broader concern for the potential harm to the 'paramount public interest in the maintenance of a vigorous, aggressive and independent press'" (quoting Baker, 470 F.2d at 782)
Matter of Beach v. Shanley
62 N.Y.2d 241 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 91 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Beach we held that a Grand Jury subpoena should have been quashed where the only testimony sought was the identity of a broadcast reporter's confidential source.
Baker v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
669 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 21 times
Affirming holding that Shield Law applied to "unpublished details of the newsgathering process," such as who made calls and interviewed particular sources, techniques for the reporters' investigation, and the backgrounds of the coauthors and editorial staff
In re App. to Quash Subpoena to Nat. BDCSTNG
79 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 40 times
In Krase v. Graco Children Prods., Inc., 79 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1996), we again confronted a journalist's claim of privilege for nonconfidential material when a defendant in a products liability lawsuit sought to compel disclosure of certain NBC Dateline outtakes it deemed relevant to its case.
In re McCray
991 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) Cited 6 times
Seeking disclosure of film and audio outtakes that filmmaker had by virtue of its role in producing a documentary
Flynn v. NYP Holdings, Inc.
235 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 19 times
In Flynn, 235 AD2d at 909, the civil "plaintiff simply stated that the materials were 'critical' to his claim without setting forth any analysis in support thereof."
Guice-Mills v. Forbes
12 Misc. 3d 852 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006) Cited 4 times
124735/02. May 9, 2006. J. Owen Zurhellen III, Putnam Valley, for plaintiff. Steven K. Mantione, Malverne, for James A. Forbes, Jr., defendant. Jonathan Irons, Bronx, for Frank Boone, defendant. David McCraw for Daniel Wakin. OPINION OF THE COURT WALTER B. TOLUB, J. By this motion, this court is presented with the unique issue of whether a professional journalist's disclosure of nonconfidential and subsequently unpublished information obtained during research of a news story constitutes a waiver
People v. Iannaccone
112 Misc. 2d 1057 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982) Cited 11 times
In People v Iannaccone (112 Misc.2d 1057, affd without opn 96 A.D.2d 488), the court stated that the Shield Law, as amended, protects both the confidential and nonconfidential information imparted to a reporter and that whereas older cases interpreting the Shield Law found that a confidential communication from a confidential source was required before its protection attached, the Legislature by amending section 79-h Civ. Rights of the Civil Rights Law has indicated its intention to do away with the "cloak of confidentiality" requirement.
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,526 times 105 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

Giuffre v. Maxwell

11 Cited authorities

Holding that "the burden of establishing all the essential elements" of a privilege claim is not met "by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions"

Concluding that there is "no legally-principled reason for drawing a distinction between civil and criminal cases when considering whether the reporter's interest in confidentiality should yield to the moving party's need for probative evidence."

Holding that nonconfidential materials are protected under the journalist's privilege because there is a "broader concern for the potential harm to the 'paramount public interest in the maintenance of a vigorous, aggressive and independent press'" (quoting Baker, 470 F.2d at 782)

In Beach we held that a Grand Jury subpoena should have been quashed where the only testimony sought was the identity of a broadcast reporter's confidential source.

Affirming holding that Shield Law applied to "unpublished details of the newsgathering process," such as who made calls and interviewed particular sources, techniques for the reporters' investigation, and the backgrounds of the coauthors and editorial staff

In Krase v. Graco Children Prods., Inc., 79 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1996), we again confronted a journalist's claim of privilege for nonconfidential material when a defendant in a products liability lawsuit sought to compel disclosure of certain NBC Dateline outtakes it deemed relevant to its case.

Seeking disclosure of film and audio outtakes that filmmaker had by virtue of its role in producing a documentary

In Flynn, 235 AD2d at 909, the civil "plaintiff simply stated that the materials were 'critical' to his claim without setting forth any analysis in support thereof."

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"