From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Apr 23, 1957
20 F.R.D. 416 (D. Mass. 1957)

Summary

In Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 20 F.R.D. 416, 417 (D. Mass. 1947), it was held that the identity of a source of information in a libel suit is relevant "in that it would have some bearing and may lead to some admissible evidence on the issue of malice."

Summary of this case from Beecroft v. Point Pleasant Print. Pub. Co.

Opinion

         Libel action against newspaper based on publication of editorial which was allegedly written on basis of an unproduced memorandum. On pre-trial motion to compel editional writer whose testimony was to be taken on deposition, to produce memorandum and divulge identity of its author, the District Court, McCarthy, J., held that neither the document nor the identity of its author came under testimonial privilege.

         Motion allowed.

          Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., Boston, Mass., and James D. St. Clair, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

          Jonn M. Hall, Boston, Mass., for defendant.


          McCARTHY, District Judge.

          The plaintiff in this libel action has been taking the deposition of the editorial employee of the defendant who wrote the editorial which allegedly libeled the plaintiff. During the course of the deposition the witness stated that he received, on the day before he wrote the editorial, a memorandum which was one of the producing causes of the editorial. The witness refused to divulge the name of the writer of this memorandum or to produce the document itself. The witness refused to testify concerning the memo or to produce it on the ground that to do so would be to violate a confidence. Treating this as a claim of privilege under Rule 26(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. it is necessary to determine whether or not there is a privilege not to testify on these facts. I am forced to the conclusion that there is no privilege. No case has been called to my attention where an American jurisdiction has said that there is such a privilege in the absence of a statute expressly creating the privilege. No Massachusetts decision has been found treating of the question. In an analogous situation in Attorney General v. Pelletier, 240 Mass. 264, at pages 306 and 307,134 N.E. 407, the Supreme Judicial Court considered whether an employee of a private detective had a privilege not to disclose confidential information gathered by him in the course of his employment. The Court there had to interpret a statute. It is also significant to note that there was no claim of a common law privilege and that the Court did not consider whether or not there was one. Although the defendant relies upon English common law decisions I must rule, from the absence of decisions and from the silence of the Supreme Judicial Court in the one case which has been found where the existence of a common law privilege might have been determined, that the common law of England in regard to privilege has never been adopted in this jurisdiction. The defendant also relies upon cases decided in those American jurisdictions where the legislatures have created a privilege by statute. If these decisions are to be a precedent in Massachusetts, the General Court of Massachusetts must adopt a similar statute.

          Having determined that the questions as to the memorandum are not privileged, it is now necessary to rule on the relevancy of the questions. The identity of the writer of the memo might not be admissible, but I rule that it is relevant in that it would have some bearing and may lead to some admissible evidence on the issue of malice.

         Under Rule 34 the plaintiff seeks to have the document itself produced. The document comes within Rule 34 for several reasons. The short answer to the question is that the document is not available to the plaintiff from any other source.

         The motion is allowed as to both aspects. The witness is to appear at an agreed time to testify concerning the document and to produce the document.


Summaries of

Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Apr 23, 1957
20 F.R.D. 416 (D. Mass. 1957)

In Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 20 F.R.D. 416, 417 (D. Mass. 1947), it was held that the identity of a source of information in a libel suit is relevant "in that it would have some bearing and may lead to some admissible evidence on the issue of malice."

Summary of this case from Beecroft v. Point Pleasant Print. Pub. Co.
Case details for

Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Owen BREWSTER v. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION.

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Apr 23, 1957

Citations

20 F.R.D. 416 (D. Mass. 1957)

Citing Cases

Sharratt v. Housing Innovations, Inc.

Punitive damages are not recoverable in a libel action in this Commonwealth, Ellis v. Brockton Publishing Co.…

Sperry Rand Corporation v. Hill

Draft No. 9, 1964), with Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 127, 1 A.L.R.2d 370, cert. den. 334…