HARRIS, ET AL
v.
BLACKSTONE DEVELOPERS, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A circuit court quashed a subpoena seeking to compel a newspaper reporter to testify and produce notes regarding an article about a building development, holding that absent a showing of compelling necessity unavailable from alternative sources, First Amendment protections shield reporters from forced disclosure of news sources and newsgathering materials in civil litigation.
The court quashed the subpoena insofar as it sought to compel production of the reporter's notes or testimony regarding the gathering of news or sources thereof, finding that absent a showing of compelling importance and unavailability from alternative non-media sources, a reporter's First Amendment protections preclude such forced disclosure.
[1] A subpoena seeking a reporter's notes and testimony regarding news gathering and sources may violate First Amendment freedoms.
[2] In civil proceedings, a reporter's news gathering and sources are generally protected from compelled disclosure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“no showing having been made to justify what would appear on its face to be a violation of the First Amendment freedoms of the news media”
Establishes the court's concern that compelled disclosure would violate First Amendment protections without sufficient justification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandolph Pendleton, a staff writer for the Florida Times-Union, was served with a subpoena to testify by deposition and produce all notes related to a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reporter'S Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard after notice, on motion of Randolph Pendleton, staff writer and reporter, and Florida Publishing Company, publisher of the Florida Times-Union, his employer, to quash witness subpoena served on him to testify by deposition at 4 P.M. this day, and to bring with him —
“All of your notes in reference to the article which you wrote and which was published in the Times-Union on October 29, 1974, in reference to the Law Exchange Building.”
And it appearing that the purpose of the deposition and production is to inquire into the gathering of news and the sources thereof, and J. Edwin Gay, Esquire, counsel for the defendant Waters, having insisted on the. deposition at 4 P.M. today but having advised the court he is unable to be present for this hearing set by the court at 3 P.M., and no showing having been made to justify what would appear on its face to be a violation of the First Amendment freedoms of the news media (See so-called swing opinion of Mr. Justice Powell in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) 408 U.S. 665, 709, 710; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 270; Associated Press v. United States (1944) 326 U.S. 1; and Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 64, 74-75).
And it further appearing that even in criminal cases it is only where information'sought to be obtained from a reporter is demonstrated to be óf cómpeHihg importance to a grand júry investigation and not available from alternative non-media sources, that a reporter may, depending on the circumstances, be obligated to disclose *179the information (See, e. g., Bursey v. United States (CA-9, 1972) 466 F.2d. 1059; Baker v. F. & F. (CA-2, 1972) 470 F.2d. 778; and Democratic National Committee v. McCord (D.C.D.C. 1973) 356 F. Supp. 1394; Regulations issued by the Attorney General of the United States on October 16, 1973, 28 C.F.R. §50.10, 38 Federal Register at page 29, 588, October 26, 1973), and this being not a criminal but a civil proceeding,
It is ordered that pending further order of the court the subpoena is hereby quashed so far as it attempts to require the production of the aforementioned notes or the answering of any questions relating to the gathering of news or the sources thereof.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. State, 337 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1976)
-
Lopez v. Garcia, 46 Fla. Supp. 173 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964)
- Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1945)
- Sherrie Bursey and Brenda Joyce Presley v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Baker v. F & F Inv., 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972)