Filed November 30, 2015
TO JOHNSON’S MOT. TO QUASH CASE NO. 3:15-cv-3522-WHO 10 sf-3597879 manuscript, a web page or a film”); Berlinger, 629 F.3d at 308-309 (overruling assertion of privilege due to moving party’s failure to make requisite showing); von Bulow by Auersperg, 811 F.2d at 145 (same). Rather, what evidence there is suggests Johnson was motivated exclusively by an intent to publish materials he knew were covered by a TRO entered in a case involving his “great friend” David Daleiden.
Filed July 5, 2016
In other words, the “primary relationship” between them has always “ha[d] at its basis the intent to disseminate the information to the public garnered from that relationship.” von Bulow, 811 F.2d at 145 (emphasis added). The fact not every isolated exchange within that relationship took the form of the source conveying specific news to the reporter does not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship—and certainly does not permit Maxwell to access pure newsgathering materials such as “interview notes.”
Filed April 24, 2018
Federal courts in New York have recognized similar protections under the First 5 Amendment of the United States Constitution. Von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 143 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987). Under the qualified privi¬ lege, journalists are shielded from forced disclosure of nonconfidential materials unless the requesting party clearly and specifically shows the information sought (1) is highly material and relevant to the litigation, (2) is critical or necessary to presenting a defense or maintain a claim, and (3) is not available from an alterna¬ tive source.
Filed September 15, 2016
Similarly, the qualified federal journalist’s privilege cannot be invoked by non-journalists, and is therefore not a basis for Ms. Giuffre to resist disclosure of her own statements to a journalist or a journalist’s statements to her. See von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 145 (2d Cir. 1987). In any event, Ms. Giuffre has already produced the Requested Documents in discovery to her adversary, so any privilege claim is waived.
Filed April 8, 2016
Defendant’s assertion relies on the von Bulow case, where the Second Circuit addressed a situation in which a friend of the defendant who had never before published any kind of writing claimed she was writing a book Case 1:16-mc-00099-P1 Document 8 Filed 04/08/16 Page 10 of 22 8 and attempted to assert the journalist’s privilege. von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1987). Faced with a challenge to this assertion, the court explained that “whether a person is a journalist, and thus protected by the privilege, must be determined by the person’s intent at the inception of the information-gathering process.” Id. at 142.
Filed February 26, 2016
Such showings must be based on competent evidence, usually through affidavits, deposition testimony, or other admissible evidence. See Von Bulow by Auersperg v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 147 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015, 107 S.Ct. 1891, 95 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987); Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 472 (S.D.N.Y.1993).
Filed March 18, 2015
nts creating the Trust, the defendant's assignments of interests in his assets/entities to the Trust, the transcript of a post-judgment deposition of the defendant taken by Ryan in order to discover his assets, documents demonstrating the truth/falsity of statements the defendant made during that deposition (none of which is conceivably privileged), an email from an attorney for the defendant to an attorney for Ryan, and from the testimony of Ryan's attorney. Finally, the witness tampering charged in Count Thirty-Five will be proved by the typewritten Q & A generated by Jason Capuano (the defendant's private investigator) for Scarpa to sign and the testimony of cooperating witnesses .11 *** In sum, the defendant's motion for a taint hearing relating to claimed violations of the attorney-client privilege should be denied for two reasons: First, it should be denied on its face because the defendant has failed to meet his burden of persuasion on the privilege issue, see, von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F .2d at 144, that is, he has not identified a single communication that is in fact protected by the attorney-client privilege and was used by the Government in the 11 The Government learned of this witness tampering and of the document in question from cooperating witnesses. 13 Case 7:14-cr-00545-CS Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 13 of 15 investigation and/or prosecution of this case.
Filed November 7, 2012
; In re Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 495 F. Supp. 582, 586 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (compelled disclosure of unpublished material would “represent a substantial intrusion on fact gathering” and would inhibit the media’s “coverage of provocative issues important to the public”). To avoid such interference with the functioning of independent journalists, courts in this Circuit have frequently construed the reporter’s privilege to protect against the compelled Case 1:03-cv-09685-DAB -RLE Document 190 Filed 11/07/12 Page 14 of 27 10 disclosure of unpublished materials, including video outtakes. See, e.g., Gonzales, 194 F.3d at 36; Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 142 (2d Cir. 1987); Sikelianos v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 7673 (RJS) (JCF), 2008 WL 2465120, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2008); Blum v. Schlegal, 150 F.R.D. 42, 45-46 (W.D.N.Y. 1993); United States v. Karen Bags, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 667, 669-71 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). For all of these reasons, the federal reporter’s privilege applies to all of the subpoenaed materials defendants seek from Florentine Films. C. Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger Does Not Apply To The Facts Here
Filed July 27, 2012
The federal common law of privileges applies to all causes of action where there is a federal cause of action and pendant jurisdiction over state claims. See Von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1987). Although state privilege law does not apply here, federal courts look to state law as persuasive authority.
Filed October 27, 2011
Ceglia’s failure to introduce any evidence leaves his claims resting on “‘mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions’ in unsworn motion papers authored by attorneys,” some of which actually undermine his claim. Allied Irish Banks, 252 F.R.D. at 169 (quoting von Bulow, 811 F.2d at 147). That is no basis for a finding that Ceglia has carried his burden of establishing an agency relationship with Jessica Ceglia.3 3 In the event the Court holds that the file named “DSC01008.JPG” is privileged as Ceglia contends, it should nevertheless order disclosure of the identity and email addresses of the sender and the recipient, along with the date and time the email was sent.