18 Cited authorities

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
376 U.S. 254 (1964) Cited 6,909 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice
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"
O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr
71 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 165 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing a qualified privilege arising under the federal and the state constitutions for non-confidential materials
Baker v. F F Investment
470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972) Cited 170 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding reporter's privilege in part because information sought was not important
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)
Application of American Tobacco Co.
880 F.2d 1520 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 71 times
Holding that res judicata did not apply to a second set of subpoenas that were "plainly narrower" than an earlier set of subpoenas that had been quashed for being overly broad and burdensome and therefore the "two sets of subpoenas are significantly different" for purposes of preclusion
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Affirming holding that Shield Law applied to "unpublished details of the newsgathering process," such as who made calls and interviewed particular sources, techniques for the reporters' investigation, and the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."
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"
Rule 501 - Privilege in General
Fed. R. Evid. 501 Cited 4,130 times 21 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision"
Section 79-H - Special provisions relating to persons employed by, or connected with, news media
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-H Cited 184 times 5 Legal Analyses
Applying New York's Shield Law only to "professional journalists and newscasters"

Green et al v. Cosby

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

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

Recognizing a qualified privilege arising under the federal and the state constitutions for non-confidential materials

Upholding reporter's privilege in part because information sought was not important

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)

Holding that res judicata did not apply to a second set of subpoenas that were "plainly narrower" than an earlier set of subpoenas that had been quashed for being overly broad and burdensome and therefore the "two sets of subpoenas are significantly different" for purposes of preclusion

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"

Recognizing that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision"

Applying New York's Shield Law only to "professional journalists and newscasters"