24 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"
Immuno Ag. v. Moor-Jankowski
77 N.Y.2d 235 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 375 times
Holding that the New York State Constitution independently provides protection for statements of opinion greater than those required by the First Amendment
In re Fitch, Inc.
330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 191 times
Noting that a motion to quash is "entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court"
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."
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
Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger
629 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 73 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal reporter's privilege is "intended to protect the public's interest in being informed by 'a vigorous, aggressive and independent press"'
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)
The New York Times Co. v. Gonzales
459 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 56 times
Recognizing that the subpoena of a reporter's phone records “is a first step of an inquiry into the identity” of the source and that a balancing test should be applied to determine whether the reporter's privilege covers the records
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.
In re Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation
680 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 92 times
Holding that even though 100 witnesses had been deposed, that was not sufficient to establish exhaustion
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"

In re McRay, Richardson, Santana, Wise and Salaam Litigation

24 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"

Holding that the New York State Constitution independently provides protection for statements of opinion greater than those required by the First Amendment

Noting that a motion to quash is "entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court"

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."

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

Holding that the federal reporter's privilege is "intended to protect the public's interest in being informed by 'a vigorous, aggressive and independent press"'

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)

Recognizing that the subpoena of a reporter's phone records “is a first step of an inquiry into the identity” of the source and that a balancing test should be applied to determine whether the reporter's privilege covers the records

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.

Holding that even though 100 witnesses had been deposed, that was not sufficient to establish exhaustion

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