first_published_at,last_published_at,title,slug,latest_revision_created_at,charges,legal_orders,updates,categories,links,equipment_seized,equipment_broken,targeted_journalists,authors,date,exact_date_unknown,city,state,latitude,longitude,body,introduction,teaser,teaser_image,primary_video,image_caption,arrest_status,arresting_authority,release_date,detention_date,unnecessary_use_of_force,case_number,case_statuses,case_type,status_of_seized_equipment,is_search_warrant_obtained,actor,border_point,target_us_citizenship_status,denial_of_entry,stopped_previously,did_authorities_ask_for_device_access,did_authorities_ask_about_work,assailant,was_journalist_targeted,charged_under_espionage_act,subpoena_type,subpoena_statuses,name_of_business,third_party_business,legal_order_target,legal_order_type,legal_order_venue,status_of_prior_restraint,mistakenly_released_materials,type_of_denial,targeted_institutions,tags,target_nationality,workers_whose_communications_were_obtained,politicians_or_public_figures_involved 2020-02-10 16:43:52.073358+00:00,2023-07-05 20:48:28.350417+00:00,"Subpoena issued for Twitter communication of journalist, others",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-issued-twitter-communication-journalist-others/,2023-07-05 20:48:28.249310+00:00,,LegalOrder object (79),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Charles Davis (Freelance),,2019-12-12,False,Charlottesville,Virginia (VA),38.02931,-78.47668,"
As part of an ongoing defamation lawsuit, an attorney representing public relations and communications strategist Trevor FitzGibbon subpoenaed Twitter to compel the social media company to produce information on nearly two dozen accounts, at least one of which belongs to a journalist.
Filed in Virginia on Dec. 12, 2019, the subpoena requested all direct messages, private messages and group messages between the defendant — high-profile attorney Jesselyn Radack — and 22 Twitter accounts, among other things.
The Twitter account of freelance reporter Charles Davis is among those identified in the subpoena. After receiving an email from Twitter notifying him that his account was implicated, Davis tweeted that he was named in retaliation for his reporting on FitzGibbon in 2017. Davis shared a copy of the subpoena with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker and said that he sent a statement to Twitter noting that he objected to the subpoena.
“It is legal harassment,” Davis said. “And while Twitter seems committed to defending its users, it also makes me think it might be time to switch to encrypted messaging apps like Signal for any conversation, sensitive or not.”
Other accounts named in the subpoena include those of numerous satirists, activists and lawyers as well as Andrew Stepanian of Sparrow Media. Stepanian told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he does not identify as a journalist. A blogger who did not respond to the Tracker’s requests for comment was also named.
Twitter filed a memorandum in support of quashing the subpoena on Feb. 4, 2020, stating, “The Subpoena suffers from a litany of substantive defects and must be quashed.”
In reference to the request for direct communications, Twitter argued FitzGibbon’s lawyer Steven Biss both sought irrelevant information or information that should be obtained from Radack, and placed an undue burden on the company.
In its memorandum, Twitter mentions that its counsel met with Biss twice, raising issues with the subpoena and requesting that he withdraw it. According to Twitter, Biss refused. In an email exchange following the second meeting, FitzGibbon’s counsel again refused to withdraw the subpoena, but narrowed the request to Radack’s communications with 17 accounts.
It is unclear whether reporter Davis’ Twitter account is still listed in the revised subpoena. Biss did not return the Tracker’s request for comment.
FitzGibbon’s underlying case against Radack is scheduled to go to trial on July 13, and all evidence must be finalized by June 29, including information gained from discovery subpoenas.
A portion of the subpoena seeking, among other things, private Twitter messages between nearly two dozen accounts.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],Twitter,tech company,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2020-02-24 20:25:41.440118+00:00,2020-02-25 15:57:11.426703+00:00,"Using obscure legal justification, NYPD subpoenas reporter's records",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/using-obscure-legal-justification-nypd-subpoenas-reporter/,2020-02-25 15:57:11.334009+00:00,,LegalOrder object (78),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-12-09,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"The New York Police Department subpoenaed Twitter for the account information of a New York Post journalist on Dec. 9, 2019, as part of a departmental leak investigation.
The Post reported that its police bureau chief Tina Moore tweeted out crime scene photos in mid-October that “appear to be at the center of the NYPD subpoena.”
The subpoena, published by the Post, commands Twitter to produce all device and contact information for Moore’s Twitter account, as well as her handle’s IP and internet connection history from Oct. 9 through Oct. 14.
Adam Scott Wandt, an assistant professor at John Jay College who specializes in digital forensics and cybersecurity, told the Post the subpoena appears to focus not on Moore’s communications but “where she is and what equipment was used.”
Wandt said the information requested could be used to create a “network trail,” geo-locating Moore’s movements over the requested days.
The subpoena claims legal authority under the city’s administrative code and the Patriot Act — a federal law passed following 9/11 which expanded law enforcement authorities. The provision of the act cited pertains to the digital transfer of information and metadata, which the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press noted is one of the most obscure sections.
NYPD spokesperson Sgt. Jessica McRorie confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the department has an open investigation into the source of the leaked photos.
“Tina Moore was never the focus of our investigation,” McRorie said in a statement. McRorie declined to answer further questions on the focus of the subpoena and why the Patriot Act was cited.
Courtney Radsch, advocacy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said in a statement, “Using the Patriot Act to subpoena a journalist’s social media data is not only a gross overstep by the New York Police Department, it is reminiscent of how countries without democratic safeguards use anti-terrorism laws to dampen or retaliate against critical journalism.”
In early February 2020, Twitter notified Moore of the subpoena. The social media company confirmed to the Tracker that it did not comply with the subpoena.
The NYPD withdrew the request on Feb. 13, after attorneys for the Post contacted the department, the Post reported.
Moore declined to comment.
In a statement to The New York Times, Post spokeswoman Iva Benson said the police department’s actions were “antithetical to a free press.”
“The Patriot Act was passed to make it easier to prevent deadly terror attacks, not help the government crack down on people who speak to reporters,” Benson said.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on NY1 show “Inside City Hall” that the subpoena was a mistake.
“I think the effort to ensure that information that is not public is kept confidential — that’s fair. But subpoenaing a reporter in that fashion? I’m not comfortable with that. Freedom of the press really matters,” de Blasio said.
A portion of the subpoena for New York Post reporter Tina Moore's Twitter information
,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['DROPPED'],Twitter,tech company,Institution,subpoena,State,None,False,None,New York Post,,,, 2023-01-26 20:09:14.837152+00:00,2023-04-04 13:44:39.338094+00:00,Spokesman-Review subpoenaed in defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/spokesman-review-subpoenaed-in-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-04-04 13:44:39.170908+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (76), LegalOrder object (77)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-11-25,False,Spokane,Washington (WA),47.65966,-117.42908,"A Washington state Court of Appeals ruled on Jan. 10, 2023, that the state’s shield law protected The Spokesman-Review and one of its editors from complying with subpoenas seeking testimony and documents as part of a defamation lawsuit. However, the 3-member panel upheld the lower court’s ruling that some information sought from the outlet and Executive Editor Rob Curley was not protected by reporter’s privilege.
The decision stemmed from a 2019 lawsuit filed by a Spokane sheriff’s deputy who was found to be wrongfully terminated after an internal investigation accused him of using a racial slur and harassment while on duty. The newspaper was first subpoenaed on Nov. 25, 2019 for testimony and documents connected to an arrangement between the outlet and the Spokane sheriff’s office to delay coverage of the internal investigation until it was completed. In 2021, the sheriff testified in a deposition about the agreement, naming Executive Editor Curley. The Tracker documented Curley’s May 2021 subpoena here.
In June 2021, The Spokesman-Review filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and for a protective order to prevent any violation of the state’s shield law and the newspaper’s First Amendment rights. The trial court partially granted the protective order in September, limiting who would need to respond to the subpoenas while allowing the request for documents and deposition of Curley. The newspaper filed for an emergency stay, or suspension, of the motion, and the Appeals Court agreed to the review in November.
In their 2023 decision to uphold the lower court’s partial granting and partial denial of the subpoenas, the three appellate judges wrote that state law protected the outlet and Curley from revealing privileged conversations and documents around any agreements. The court agreed, however, that the dates and times of any agreements made between Curley and the sheriff’s office were not protected by shield law. The ruling did not specify a date for providing information about the agreements.
Spokesman-Review Attorney Casey Bruner told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an emailed statement that the newspaper was satisfied with the court’s ruling.
Bruner wrote that the decision protected and clarified the state shield law. “We believe the decision is beneficial not just to the Spokesman-Review but to all reporters in the state and is a step in the right direction for protecting the freedom of the press.”
A portion of the subpoena issued to The Spokesman-Review on Nov. 25, 2019, seeking testimony and documents as part of a defamation lawsuit in Spokane, Washington.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,"['QUASHED', 'UPHELD']",None,None,Institution,None,State,None,False,None,The Spokesman-Review,,,, 2021-05-06 20:13:48.123654+00:00,2023-07-05 18:41:42.235427+00:00,Court grants motion to compel former editor to reveal confidential source,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-grants-motion-to-compel-former-editor-to-reveal-confidential-source/,2023-07-05 18:41:42.117650+00:00,,LegalOrder object (75),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Milo Yiannopoulos (Breitbart News),,2019-11-05,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"On Nov. 5, 2019, as part a lawsuit against the organizers of Unite the Right rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, in Aug. 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor at Breitbart News, was subpoenaed for all documents and communication related to the rally and one of its organizers, Richard Spencer.
Yiannopoulos, who, in Feb. 2017, had resigned from his post at the conservite news site once described by its chairman as a “platform for the alt-right,” failed to comply with the subpoena, and on Dec. 18, the parties involved in the suit agreed to restrict its scope, now requesting only audio and visual recordings concerning the rally, as well as any communications between Yiannopoulos and the defendants.
Yiannopoulos again failed to comply, ultimately stating that he had “nothing to produce relevant to the planning of [the rally].”
On April 6, 2020, however, Yiannopoulos published a video on his YouTube channel that showed Spencer chanting, “Sieg Heil,” and performing a Nazi salute among a crowd of people, and two months later, he claimed on the social media website Telegram that “[a] lot more Richard Spencer drops still to come from me.” This prompted the plaintiffs in the case to file a motion, on June 25, to compel his compliance with the subpoena.
In a court hearing on July 29, Yiannopoulos testified that the recordings relating to Spencer and the rally were not in his possession and that he had been “mistaken” in his belief that he possessed them. “I have consulted the source of these recordings, who reminded me that they were played to me, but I did not retain copies of them,” Yiannopoulos told the court in his objection to the subpoena. He then invoked the reporter’s privilege to protect the source’s identity.
The plaintiffs argued that Yiannopoulos could not invoke such privilege, stating that he’d been “cultivating his source in order to pursue a personal feud with Richard Spencer, and was thus not acting in the role of an independent journalist.”
On Oct. 14, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Yiannopoulos had been working for Breitbart at the time he contacted the source and was thus protected by the reporter’s privilege.
It noted: “Respondent’s style of disseminating information may be confrontational and biased, but it is not wholly without journalistic content, and protecting even Respondent’s muckraking style protects the ‘public interest in the maintenance of a vigorous, aggressive and independent press capable of participating in robust, unfettered debate over controversial matters.”
The court order stated that the plaintiffs had also failed to prove that the requested information was not available through alternative sources and rejected their claim that Yiannopoulos had not acted as an independent journalist. The court denied the motion to compel “with leave to renew upon a more thorough demonstration that Movants have exhausted potential alternative sources.”
When reached for comment, Yiannopoulos told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: “Journalists are, to a man, weaselly, hypocritical, vindictive, disreputable and disgusting people, but we survive for one reason: We don’t reveal our sources.”
On Nov. 5, 2020, the movants submitted a renewed motion to compel. The court admitted the renewed motion after Yiannapolous did not submit an opposition to the motion.
The court subsequently granted the renewed motion to compel, ordering Yiannopoulos to reveal the two sources and noting that the movants had now also successfully shown that the confidential information sought was not obtainable from other available sources and had therefore overcome qualified privilege.
A law clerk at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York told the Tracker that the movants in the case had not approached the court since that order to compel, implying that the respondent, Yiannopoulos, had complied.
Yiannopoulos did not respond to the Tracker’s follow-up request for comment.
In the early hours of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich, a 27-year-old staffer with the Democratic National Committee, was fatally shot while walking to his home in Washington, D.C. His death, while unsolved, is believed to be the result of a robbery gone wrong. It quickly, however, became a flash point for conspiracy theories: that Rich had been behind a DNC email dump to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, and that he’d effectively been assassinated because of it. None of the claims have ever been substantiated.
On March 26, 2018, Rich’s brother, Aaron, filed a defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a slew of defendants — Texas businessman and then-frequent Fox News guest Ed Butowsky, the Washington Times, America First Media Group and its founder, Matt Couch — who he’d alleged had shown a “reckless disregard for the truth” and falsely linked both himself and his brother to the email leak.
During the course of three years of litigation, attorneys for both sides collectively subpoenaed nearly a dozen news outlets and members of the press. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documents all subpoena requests individually; Find a complete overview of the known subpoenas for this case in the blog post, “Nearly a dozen journalists, outlets and third parties subpoenaed in defamation suit.”
In January 2021, both Couch and Butowsky publicly apologized and retracted prior claims made about the Rich brothers, though Butowsky deleted his statement of contrition almost immediately, according to Law & Crime. Couch and Rich reached a settlement agreement on Jan. 19; Butowsky and Rich reached an agreement on March 22. The lawsuit was terminated officially when District Judge Richard Leon granted Rich’s motions to dismiss the charges against the defendants on March 29. The details of the settlement agreements were not made public.
Ratner — who’s late brother, Michael, was one of WikiLeaks’ U.S. lawyers — claimed Assange told her during a three-hour meeting in London that the DNC email dump was executed by an insider, not the Russian government.
Status of Subpoena
Carried out. Following the completion of the deposition, Butowsky voiced a desire to cross-examine or re-depose Ratner, ultimately filing his own deposition subpoena and a motion to strike the first deposition in its entirety. The Tracker has documented the second subpoena here.
On Oct. 31, 2019, venture capital investor, entrepreneur and philanthropist Shervin Pishevar filed an application for discovery against Fast Company senior news editor Marcus Baram in an effort to uncover identifying information about a source cited in a 2017 article.
In September 2017, Baram met with a confidential source who claimed to have information concerning the arrest of the tech investor on suspicion of sexual assault in London that May. The source also claimed to have a copy of the police report from that arrest. In a response to a request for comment, Pishevar confirmed his arrest in a statement to Fast Company.
Information provided by the source and contained in the alleged police report was used in an article published by Fast Company in November 2017, having received inconclusive responses from the City of London Police concerning the document’s authenticity. The police report was later proven to be fabricated.
Fast Company received a subpoena from lawyers representing Pishevar in August 2019, seeking information they hoped to use in possible future court cases, or “contemplated criminal and civil proceedings in England,” according to a memorandum of law obtained by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
General counsel for the magazine largely complied with the subpoena and follow up emails from Pishevar’s attorneys. They did not, however, provide identifying information about Baram’s confidential source, stating that Baram claimed reporter’s privilege under New York’s shield law.
Lucas Bento, an attorney for Pishevar, acknowledged that identifying information about the source was the central aim of the subpoena, and threatened to pursue a court-ordered deposition of Baram if Fast Company did not provide the identifying information voluntarily.
Bento followed through on this threat on Oct. 31, filing an application for discovery for documents, communications and testimony from Baram. The application, which is the process by which subpoenas are issued by foreign parties and approved by U.S. courts, was obtained and reviewed by the Tracker.
In an affidavit opposing the application filed on Dec. 4, Baram said that he often relies on speaking with sources on the condition of anonymity.
“My ability to report on matters of public interest depends on my ability to safeguard the identities of my sources and the confidentiality of the information that they provide. I have never revealed a confidential source,” Baram said.
In addition to asserting his reporter’s privilege, Baram wrote that he was asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. He noted concerns that — while he maintains he committed no crime — Pishevar may pursue criminal charges against him.
“I am appalled that my honest newsgathering and truthful reporting about [City of London Police’s] arrest of Mr. Pishevar (a fact he has acknowledged) could result in criminal allegations against me by Mr. Pishevar,” Baram said.
This article was updated to reflect that Shervin Pishevar confirmed his arrest to Fast Company.
A portion of one of two subpoenas seeking confidential work product and testimony from Fast Company senior news editor Marcus Baram in relation to a 2017 article about investor Shervin Pishevar
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,testimony about confidential source,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-10-21 16:35:36.411714+00:00,2024-01-24 21:40:56.006400+00:00,"Journalists subpoenaed in criminal case involving intimidation, blackmail of the news organizations",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalists-subpoenaed-criminal-case-involving-intimidation-blackmail-news-organizations/,2024-01-24 21:40:55.879707+00:00,,LegalOrder object (72),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,"Andy Taylor (Montgomery County Chronicle), Josh Umholtz (The Independence Daily Reporter)",,2019-09-10,False,Independence,Kansas (KS),37.22424,-95.70831,"Journalists at two local newspapers in Kansas have been subpoenaed for testimony as part of a criminal case against a former community college football coach featured in a Netflix documentary who allegedly impersonated a high-powered Los Angeles attorney as part of a scheme to intimidate the journalists.
The Independence Daily Reporter, its publisher, and the editor for the Montgomery County Chronicle received a subpoena dated Sept. 10, 2019.
Both the Daily Reporter and the Chronicle are based in Independence, a small town of under 9,000 people in southeastern Kansas. The town gained national fame when “Last Chance U,” a Netflix documentary series about junior college football teams, arrived in 2017 to chronicle the transformation of Independence Community College’s football program under new coach Jason Brown.
The Daily Reporter is a daily newspaper that publishes both online and in print, while the Chronicle is a weekly publication that doesn’t have a website. The Chronicle is edited by Andy Taylor, whose family has been in the newspaper business since the 1870s. Andy’s parents, Rudy and Kathy Taylor, are the paper’s owners and publishers.
Taylor told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the trouble began in October 2018, after he published an editorial critical of coach Brown and the ICC football team, which had gotten into a physical fight with an opposing team the month before.
A few weeks after the editorial was published, Taylor received an email from someone claiming to be “Richard Barnwell,” an attorney at The Cochran Firm, a well-known law firm in Los Angeles. The email threatened Taylor with a lawsuit if he continued to write about Brown. (Although Taylor said he could not share copies of the actual emails in advance of the trial, he was able to describe them in general terms.)
“It looked legit,” Taylor said of the email. “It had the guy’s [photograph] on there. It had a link to the firm’s website. It was just very typical of what you’d see in any cease-and-desist letter. It was typical in the language, where it would start out saying, ‘I represent Jason Brown at Independence Community College, he is my client, any continuing effort to defame or write anything that is negative toward my client will result in immediate litigation against you, please cease and desist.’”
The email spooked Taylor, who knew that his family’s small-town newspaper could not afford to defend an expensive defamation suit.
“My parents, who are in their mid-70s, own the newspaper,” Taylor said. “They’re the publishers. So I presented them the cease-and-desist letter, and they were very quick and swift in their decision. In fact, my father said, ‘Andy, you need to cool your jets!’ Meaning, stop being critical of Jason Brown.”
Fearful of a lawsuit, the Chronicle stopped running editorials and commentary critical of Brown and the ICC football program.
Then in February 2019, a student at ICC who had been cut from the football team reached out to Taylor with an explosive tip about Brown. The student, who was originally from Germany, told Taylor that Brown had berated him in front of his teammates and mocked his heritage. After the student complained about Brown’s behavior to ICC administrators, the coach sent him a text message: “I’m your new Hitler.” The student shared a copy of the text message with Taylor.
Soon after Taylor contacted ICC’s president for comment, he received another threatening email from “Richard Barnwell.”
Taylor said this email referenced the cease-and-desist language of the first email and again threatened a defamation and libel lawsuit if he investigated further.
This time, Taylor replied to the email. The response he got from “Barnwell” was unprofessional, full of misspelled words — including the word “chronicle” — and personal insults, which made him skeptical that the man on the other end of the email was really a professional attorney. Taylor also noticed that the emails supposedly from “Barnwell” were sent from a Yahoo email address, rather than an email address associated with The Cochran Firm.
Suspicious that someone was impersonating Barnwell, Taylor called the attorney’s office and explained the situation to his secretary. Barnwell soon left Taylor a voicemail confirming that the attorney had nothing to do with the emails and had never heard of Brown.
Taylor then contacted the county sheriff’s office and told them the whole story. In May, the sheriff’s office informed Taylor that it had obtained evidence tying the fake “Barnwell” account to Brown’s electronic devices. Taylor also learned that the same email account had targeted another local newspaper — the Daily Reporter — which had run an editorial cartoon mocking Brown.
On June 28, Brown was charged with four felony counts of blackmail, four felony counts of identity theft, and two misdemeanor counts of criminal false communication, according to the Chronicle.
A month later, Netflix released the fourth season of “Last Chance U.” The season details the text message incident and Brown’s subsequent firing but makes no mention of the pending criminal charges against him.
Taylor plans to testify at Brown’s trial, which was originally scheduled to begin in October but has since been postponed to January 2020. Both Taylor and Josh Umholtz, the publisher of the Daily Reporter, and the Daily Reporter itself appear on a list of subpoenaed witnesses. No one from the Daily Reporter has returned request for comment as to whether the organization will comply with the subpoena.
Most subpoena cases documented on the Tracker involve journalists who are being compelled to testify, often about their reporting and their confidential sources, against their will. This case is different.
Taylor described his situation as “the flip side of the conventional argument against journalists testifying,” Taylor said, since it involves journalists being the victim of a criminal attempt to intimidate the press. He said he would testify voluntarily even if he had not been subpoenaed in the case.
“I just want to tell somebody, with my hand on my Bible and under oath, that I did my job, I did it well, and somebody didn’t like that and tried to put my pen away, and that doesn’t work in America,” he said.
The Montgomery County Chronicle is one of two Kansas publications subpoenaed to testify in a criminal case against a community college football coach charged with blackmail, identity theft after allegedly sending false cease-and-desist emails.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['PENDING'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,[],The Independence Daily Reporter,,,, 2019-10-01 19:01:24.995200+00:00,2023-07-05 18:45:07.352326+00:00,BuzzFeed reporter receives second subpoena in ongoing Unsworth-Musk defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/buzzfeed-reporter-receives-second-subpoena-ongoing-unsworth-musk-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 18:45:07.242182+00:00,,LegalOrder object (71),(2019-10-08 11:54:00+00:00) Judge upholds one subpoena deposition in ongoing Musk-Unsworth case,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Ryan Mac (BuzzFeed News),,2019-09-06,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"Ryan Mac, a senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News, was issued his second subpoena in the ongoing case between caver Vernon Unsworth and Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Sept. 6, 2019. In total, five subpoenas were issued for reporting material and testimony from Mac and the digital news outlet.
Unsworth is suing Musk for defamation, alleging that the tech executive repeatedly labeled him a pedophile without evidence on Twitter and in communications with Mac, the latter of which were published by the outlet.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the motion to quash both subpoenas for Mac’s deposition. The filing said that Musk was the first to issue a subpoena, demanding that Mac appear at a Sept. 11 deposition. About a week later, Unsworth filed a deposition subpoena cross-noticing the subpoena from Musk, listing the same date and time.
Musk’s counsel had previously issued two subpoenas for information from the news organization.
Unsworth had promised not to file additional subpoenas for discovery after BuzzFeed complied with a previous subpoena for documents establishing how many people viewed BuzzFeed articles about Musk’s dispute with Unsworth.
The filing said that Unsworth’s counsel was asked to voluntarily withdraw the subpoena. They declined.
Mac’s attorneys filed the motion to quash both deposition subpoenas on Sept. 13, arguing that any information that could be gained legally is already available to the parties and everything else is protected under California’s reporter’s privilege.
“The Deposition Subpoenas represent an attempt to harass and scapegoat BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac for publishing a news article about comments made by billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk,” the filing said.
A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 18.
A portion of the second subpoena demanding testimony from BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac as part of an ongoing defamation lawsuit between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and caver Vernon Unsworth.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['UPHELD'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-09-18 17:07:40.585091+00:00,2023-07-05 18:33:01.827019+00:00,Subpoenas seeking Illinois-based government watchdog’s communications and documents dropped,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoenas-seeking-illinois-based-government-watchdogs-communications-and-documents-dropped/,2023-07-05 18:33:01.716328+00:00,,LegalOrder object (69),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Kirk Allen (Edgar County Watchdogs),,2019-08-27,False,Effingham County,Illinois (IL),None,None,"Illinois-based government watchdog blog Edgar County Watchdogs and its co-founder and reporter, Kirk Allen, received subpoenas for communications and documents relating to articles involving an ambulance service operating in Effingham County, Illinois.
As part of a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by Lakeside EMS, LLC, against the county, the two Aug. 27, 2019, subpoenas ordered Edgar County Watchdogs and Allen to produce communications or documents exchanged with Lakeside CEO Jerrod Estes, as well as with any “employee or agent” of Lakeside or the county. They also order the turnover of copies of articles written or generated relating to Effingham County, county Board Chairman Jim Niemann or Lakeside.
“We wrote several articles about the process which the county used to award the contract to the current emergency service provider: it was done without putting it up for bid and board members have believed conflicts of interest because they have family members working there,” co-founder John Kraft told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. “So, basically they’re asking for all of our sources and the information we gave back-and-forth.”
Allen, who wrote many of the articles, told the Tracker that the only documents he has that fall under the subpoena are ones he received from Effingham County through public records requests.
“They know exactly what I got from the county because I FOIA’ed it. So, why did they waste my time with a subpoena for records they already gave me?” Allen said. “It’s their way of trying to create a legal burden on us as well, because there’s no reason for that subpoena.”
Allen also noted that Edgar County Watchdogs has been pursuing a Freedom of Information Act violation claim against the county for nearly two years, pressing for the release of documents related to the ambulance service investigation.
The subpoenas ordered the documents produced by Sept. 16, but Kraft told the Tracker that the group’s attorney, government transparency and media lawyer Matt Topic, filed for an extension of 30 days on compliance.
The federal case was dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 11 by U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois Nancy Rosenstengel, and as a result the subpoenas were dropped.
Bryan Kibler, the state attorney representing Effingham County, told the Tracker that the case was dismissed pending the results of the state case involving the ambulance service and the county. Kibler said that he would not rule out refiling the subpoenas against the Edgar County Watchdogs and Allen if necessary in the future.
The Tracker has documented multiple other subpoenas against Edgar County Watchdogs in 2019, including a subpoena for their communications and documents relating to the College of DuPage and a subpoena for the group’s Dropbox contents. A motion to quash the former is still pending and the latter was quashed on Feb. 11.
A portion of a subpoena received by Edgar County Watchdogs for reporting materials
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['DROPPED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2019-09-27 16:53:19.714292+00:00,2023-07-05 18:47:52.778976+00:00,Tech journalist subpoenaed in ongoing Bitcoin lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/tech-journalist-subpoenaed-ongoing-bitcoin-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 18:47:52.572431+00:00,,LegalOrder object (70),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-08-27,False,Miami,Florida (FL),25.77427,-80.19366,"Brendan Sullivan, a journalist at Modern Consensus, received a subpoena for all documents and communications between him and Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist and businessman who has claimed to be the creator of Bitcoin.
Wright is currently the defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by the Estate of David Kleiman, Wright’s late partner. David’s brother, Ira Kleiman, is the executor of the estate and claims Wright attempted to steal his brother’s Bitcoin holdings, now worth approximately $10 billion.
Wright agreed to an interview with Sullivan, giving him a scoop on the case before the courts made an announcement of the judge's order. The next day, on Aug. 27, 2019, someone was waiting outside of Sullivan’s home to serve him the subpoena, according to his article outlining the events.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the subpoena, which Sullivan posted with his article. It orders him to hand over any documents and communications between him and Wright since 2006 (before Bitcoin was invented), listing out more than 110 items that count as “documents,” including their encrypted WhatsApp and Signal messages, every social media conversation, interview notes and transcripts, drafts of his article and any relevant documents protected by computer encryption.
“I’m a journalist and the court has no right to any of my files, notes, thoughts or personal belongings. They are not getting anything from me,” Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan told the Tracker that he refused to attend the deposition hearing scheduled for Sept. 10. His lawyer filed a motion to quash on Sept. 9, arguing that the breadth of documents requested suggests that the subpoena is a fishing expedition with no clear idea how, if at all, the documents are relevant to the case.
The filing also included an affidavit from Sullivan authenticating his article and stating that it truly and accurately reflects his interview with Wright. In addition to asking that the subpoena be quashed, they are asking for Kleiman to cover Sullivan’s legal fees.
“I can fight this for years if I need to,” Sullivan told the Tracker. “What I really want is just to have my press freedom back.”
On Sept. 20, a judge granted Kleiman’s attorney a 21-day extension to respond to the motion to quash the subpoena against Sullivan. In a joint filling from Wright and Kleiman they state, “The parties have been engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and have reached a non-binding agreement in principle to settle this matter.”
If a settlement is reached, Sullivan told the Tracker, it is likely that the subpoena against him would be dropped.
The Bitcoin logo
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,Modern Consensus,,,, 2019-10-01 18:55:36.546358+00:00,2023-07-05 18:48:17.848175+00:00,BuzzFeed reporter receives subpoena in ongoing Unsworth-Musk defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/buzzfeed-reporter-receives-subpoena-ongoing-unsworth-musk-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 18:48:17.706100+00:00,,LegalOrder object (68),(2019-10-08 11:51:00+00:00) Judge quashes Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s deposition subpoena,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Ryan Mac (BuzzFeed News),,2019-08-26,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"Ryan Mac, a senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News, was issued his first subpoena in the unfolding case between caver Vernon Unsworth and Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Aug. 26, 2019. Mac subsequently received a second deposition subpoena, bringing the total number of subpoenas issued against the outlet and its reporter to five.
Unsworth is suing Musk for defamation, alleging that the tech executive repeatedly labeled him a pedophile without evidence on Twitter and in communications with Mac, the latter of which were published by the outlet.
Lawyers for Musk previously subpoenaed the outlet twice during the discovery phase, and lawyers for Unsworth did so once. BuzzFeed provided some of the requested documents while objecting to others on First Amendment and reporter’s privilege grounds. The judge sustained the outlet’s objections.
Musk was the first to file a subpoena demanding reporter Mac appear at a Sept. 11 deposition in San Francisco. About a week later, Unsworth’s counsel issued its own subpoena against Mac, effectively joining Musk’s. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the motion to quash both subpoenas for Mac’s deposition.
According to the filing, the cover letter on the subpoena stated, “Mr. Musk does not intend to seek testimony from you that would be protected by the United States or California Constitutions or any other reporter’s privilege.” The letter did not, however, state what information Musk did hope to obtain by questioning Mac.
Mac’s counsel argued that Musk’s attempt to depose the reporter was part of a campaign of harassment and intimidation.
“It is clear from Musk’s prior conduct that he would put Mac through the ordeal of a hostile deposition for no reason other than to retaliate against Mac for his critical reporting,” the filing said. “The deposition subpoenas must be quashed to avoid this oppressive outcome.”
The filing argued that Musk is trying to deflect blame for his comments about Unsworth onto Mac, claiming that because Musk wrote the phrase “off the record” in the unsolicited email he sent to Mac, he couldn’t reasonably foresee that the statements he made would be published and therefore cannot be held liable.
Mac’s attorneys argued that, as Mac never agreed to keep the emails off the record, their contents were fair game for publication.
According to the filing, Musk’s attorneys were asked to voluntarily withdraw the subpoena, but they declined to do so.
On Sept. 9, Michael Lifrak, an attorney representing Musk, emailed BuzzFeed Attorney Kate Bolger offering to withdraw the deposition subpoena if the outlet would agree to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, in which one or more individuals from an entity are questioned about set topics. The topics proposed by Lifrak included BuzzFeed’s guidelines on publishing off-the-record and on-background information, pre-publication review process and editorial process and procedures for predicting article popularity.
Bolger responded over email, “This request calls for privileged matters related to BuzzFeed’s newsgathering materials and is, indeed, far broader than the request to Mr. Mac. It is not worth exploring.”
Mac’s attorneys filed a motion to quash both deposition subpoenas on Sept. 13, arguing that any information that could be gained legally is already available to the parties and everything else is protected under California’s reporter’s privilege.
A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 18.
A portion of the first of two deposition subpoenas sent to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac as part of a defamation suit between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and caver Vernon Unsworth.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-10-01 18:43:57.296764+00:00,2023-07-05 20:49:18.322614+00:00,BuzzFeed receives third subpoena in ongoing Unsworth-Musk defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/buzzfeed-receives-third-subpoena-ongoing-unsworth-musk-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 20:49:18.229713+00:00,,LegalOrder object (67),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-08-21,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"BuzzFeed News was issued a third subpoena in the ongoing case between caver Vernon Unsworth and Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Aug. 21, 2019. In total, five subpoenas were issued for reporting material and testimony from the digital news outlet and one of its reporters.
Unsworth is suing Musk for defamation, alleging that the tech executive repeatedly labeled him a pedophile without evidence on Twitter and in communications with BuzzFeed senior tech journalist Ryan Mac, the latter of which were published by the outlet.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the subpoena, which was the second filed by counsel for Musk and the third it received overall. The subpoena ordered BuzzFeed to produce, in part, a copy of the version of the outlet’s Standards and Ethics Guide posted on buzzfeednews.com between August and September 2018. BuzzFeed, while maintaining its objections to the request, complied.
The subpoena also demanded all documents relating to the decisions around publishing the contents of Musk’s emails to senior technology reporter Ryan Mac and to amending the outlet’s ethics guide after the article was published. It also requested copies of all policies governing the publication of ‘off the record’ or ‘on background’ conversations.
BuzzFeed filed objections to the subpoena on Sept. 6 on the grounds that the requested documents were irrelevant, protected by various privileges (including the reporter’s privilege) and would be unduly burdensome to search for and review.
The outlet did, however, comply with Musk’s demand for copies of documents and communications produced in response to Unsworth’s subpoena.
A portion of the third subpoena received by BuzzFeed in August as part of the defamation case between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the caver Vernon Unsworth.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,BuzzFeed News,,,, 2019-09-20 16:23:11.471374+00:00,2024-02-29 19:51:16.778035+00:00,Subpoena for Iowa journalist’s reporting materials in lottery rigging case dropped,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-for-iowa-journalists-reporting-materials-in-lottery-rigging-case-dropped/,2024-02-29 19:51:16.690963+00:00,,LegalOrder object (66),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Perry Beeman (Independent),,2019-08-16,False,Iowa City,Iowa (IA),41.66113,-91.53017,"Iowa journalist Perry Beeman received a subpoena for unpublished work product in connection to his book, “The $80 Billion Gamble,” on Aug. 16, 2019.
The books tells the story of lottery security contractor Eddie Tipton, who rigged number-drawing programs on computers to win jackpots for himself, friends and family in several states, The Associated Press reported. Larry Dawson, a jackpot winner, has sued the Iowa Lottery and Multi-State Lottery Association, arguing that Tipton’s scheme reduced his prize by millions.
As part of the lawsuit, attorneys representing Dawson ordered Beeman to turn over by Sept. 16 all of his correspondence with former Iowa Lottery CEO Terry Rich—with whom Beeman co-authored the book—since January 2018, including notes related to four interviews they conducted last year.
Beeman did not respond to the subpoena before it was withdrawn on Aug. 27, but he told the AP he likely would have fought it.
“I’m happy that he’s withdrawn the subpoena,” Beeman told the AP. “I think the information was privileged. The Iowa Supreme Court has been pretty clear that the type of information sought was off limits.”
Blake Hanson, one of the attorneys representing Dawson, confirmed to the AP that the subpoena had been withdrawn, but offered no explanation for the decision. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in December.
An Iowa Powerball drawing manager performs a test run of equipment in this 1998 file photo.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['DROPPED'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2019-12-18 18:26:55.842338+00:00,2024-02-29 18:48:13.690325+00:00,Fast Company subpoenaed for identifying information on confidential source,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/fast-company-subpoenaed-identifying-information-confidential-source/,2024-02-29 18:48:13.603536+00:00,,LegalOrder object (65),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-08-09,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Business magazine Fast Company was subpoenaed on Aug. 9, 2019, for communications and documents relating to a 2017 article concerning the arrest of a tech investor in London.
Venture capital investor, entrepreneur and philanthropist Shervin Pishevar was arrested in May 2017 in the United Kingdom on suspicion of sexual assault. According to a memorandum of law filed by Pishevar’s attorneys and obtained by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Pishevar was released on bail the following day. City of London Police confirmed that July that they would take no further action against him due to insufficient evidence.
In June 2017, Pishevar, known for his investments in companies like Uber and AirBnB, obtained an injunction in England to prevent UK publication The Sun from publishing his name in any future articles about the incident, according to the memo.
A confidential source reached out to Fast Company senior news editor Marcus Baram in New York, alleging that they possessed a copy of Pishevar’s arrest report. Baram met with the individual in Washington, D.C., in September 2017 and received a copy of the alleged police report.
Fast Company published an article containing a statement from Pishevar confirming his arrest, as well as details provided from the source and report in November. The police report was later proven to be fabricated.
In early August, lawyers representing Pishevar filed an application for discovery by a foreign party to serve Fast Company — through Mansueto, the legal entity controlling the magazine — with a subpoena to produce information. The memo stated the information was for use in “contemplated criminal and civil proceedings in England,” or possible future court cases.
The application was granted by a federal judge for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 9.
The subpoena, obtained by the Tracker, asked for all documents and communications relating to the forged police report, particularly any information that could be used to determine the identity of the forger and anyone who helped distribute the report. Fast Company largely complied with the subpoena, with lawyers for both parties exchanging emails in September and October.
Fast Company did not, however, provide information that would have identified Baram’s confidential source, stating that Baram claimed reporter’s privilege under New York’s shield law. Lucas Bento, an attorney for Pishevar, acknowledged in an email to Fast Company’s general counsel Alison Anthoine that such identifying information was the central aim of the subpoena.
“While we recognize the source’s name is not being redacted in any of the documents, can you please provide us further information about the individual who distributed the forged police report to Mr. Baram,” Bento wrote, “including his or her name or alias, contact information, Signal contact information (including screen name and number), or other identifying information (such as gender, race, age, height, weight, eye color, hair color, glasses, or dress).”
Bento also threatened to pursue a court-ordered deposition of Baram if Fast Company did not provide the identifying information voluntarily. In subsequent emails, Anthoine provided information about the individual whom the source said provided them the report, but not about the source.
Bento followed through on the threat to pursue testimony and documents from Baram, filing an application for additional discovery on Oct. 31, 2019. Attorneys for Baram filed a memo in opposition to the application on Dec. 4.
Editor's Note: This article was updated to reflect that Shervin Pishevar confirmed his arrest to Fast Company.
A portion of the subpoena for documents from Fast Company on behalf of tech investor Shervin Pishevar
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['CARRIED_OUT'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],Fast Company,,,, 2021-04-16 02:03:39.780727+00:00,2022-04-06 18:13:54.861653+00:00,"America First Media Group founder ordered to comply with document, testimony requests",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/america-first-media-group-founder-ordered-to-comply-with-document-testimony-requests/,2022-04-06 18:13:54.797970+00:00,,LegalOrder object (64),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Matt Couch (America First Media Group),,2019-07-31,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"In the early hours of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich, a 27-year-old staffer with the Democratic National Committee, was fatally shot while walking to his home in Washington, D.C. His death, while unsolved, is believed to be the result of a robbery gone wrong. It quickly, however, became a flash point for conspiracy theories: that Rich had been behind a DNC email dump to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, and that he’d effectively been assassinated because of it. None of the claims have ever been substantiated.
On March 26, 2018, Rich’s brother, Aaron, filed a defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a slew of defendants — Texas businessman and then-frequent Fox News guest Ed Butowsky, the Washington Times, America First Media Group and its founder, Matt Couch — who he’d alleged had shown a “reckless disregard for the truth” and falsely linked both himself and his brother to the email leak.
During the course of three years of litigation, attorneys for both sides collectively subpoenaed nearly a dozen news outlets and members of the press. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documents all subpoena requests individually; Find a complete overview of the known subpoenas for this case in the blog post, “Nearly a dozen journalists, outlets and third parties subpoenaed in defamation suit.”
In January 2021, both Couch and Butowsky publicly apologized and retracted prior claims made about the Rich brothers, though Butowsky deleted his statement of contrition almost immediately, according to Law & Crime. Couch and Rich reached a settlement agreement on Jan. 19; Butowsky and Rich reached an agreement on March 22. The lawsuit was terminated officially when District Judge Richard Leon granted Rich’s motions to dismiss the charges against the defendants on March 29. The details of the settlement agreements were not made public.
Couch published several conspiracy-driven stories about the Riches on AFM’s website and both his personal and the outlet’s social media platforms. He later identified Butowsky as the outlet’s only source for the information it reported.
Status of Subpoena
BuzzFeed News was issued a second subpoena in the ongoing defamation case between caver Vernon Unsworth and Tesla CEO Elon Musk on July 29, 2019. In total, five subpoenas were issued for reporting material and testimony from the digital news outlet and one of its reporters.
Unsworth is suing Musk for defamation, alleging that the tech executive repeatedly labeled him a pedophile without evidence on Twitter and in communications with BuzzFeed senior tech journalist Ryan Mac, the latter of which were published by the outlet.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the subpoena issued by counsel for Unsworth. The subpoena ordered BuzzFeed to produce all documents and communications produced in response to a previous subpoena by Musk’s counsel, as well as website traffic metrics on the dates articles concerning Musk’s dispute with Unsworth were published and data analytics for interactions with each article on BuzzFeed’s website and social media.
An email exchange between BuzzFeed attorney Kate Bolger and Unsworth attorney Taylor Wilson concerning the subpoena was documented in a subsequent motion. Bolger stated in the exchange, “BuzzFeed will produce the page views you requested provided you agree that no further response to the subpoena is required and that there will be no additional subpoenae.”
Wilson agreed not to file additional discovery subpoenas, but reserved the right to seek trial testimony.
BuzzFeed filed formal objections to the subpoena demands on First and 14th Amendment grounds on Aug. 23. The outlet did agree to provide copies of documents prepared in response to the Musk subpoena and non-privileged website traffic and article metrics.
A portion of the second subpoena received by BuzzFeed as part of a defamation case between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the caver Vernon Unsworth.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,BuzzFeed News,,,, 2019-11-08 18:22:34.962239+00:00,2023-06-28 20:01:17.362319+00:00,New Yorker staff writer subpoenaed for testimony in civil rights lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-yorker-staff-writer-subpoenaed-testimony-civil-rights-lawsuit/,2023-06-28 20:01:17.241308+00:00,,LegalOrder object (62),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Nicholas Schmidle (The New Yorker),,2019-06-18,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"In June, attorneys representing the City of Chicago subpoenaed New Yorker staff writer Nicholas Schmidle to testify about his sources for an article published in 2014. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., then quashed the subpoenas in October.
A separate subpoena for documents was served to Schmidle in February.
In 2014, Schmidle wrote a feature story for the New Yorker about Tyrone Hood, who had been convicted of murder in 1996 and sentenced to 75 years in prison. Schmidle’s article included evidence strongly suggesting that Hood was innocent.
In January 2015, outgoing Illinois governor Pat Quinn commuted the prison sentences of a number of prisoners, including Hood, on his last day in office. Because Hood received a commutation, not a pardon, he was let out of jail early but the murder conviction stayed on his record.
At the time, a spokeswoman for Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez told CBS 2 Chicago that Alvarez was “deeply disappointed” with the governor’s decision to commute Hood’s sentence.
Just a month later, though, Alvarez’s office announced that its Conviction Integrity Unit had completed a two-year investigation into Hood’s case, which concluded that Hood’s conviction should be vacated. Alvarez then asked a court to vacate Hood’s conviction, which the court did. Hood was now out of prison and cleared of the murder conviction.
In 2016, Hood filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Chicago and a number of Chicago police officers, accusing them of pressuring witnesses into falsely accusing him of murder.
On June 18, 2019, the reporter Schmidle was served with a subpoena to testify in the case. The subpoena ordered him to submit to a deposition at a “TBD” location on July 12. About a week later, a process server tried to drop off a new copy of the subpoena (which included the location of the deposition) but Schmidle refused to open his door.
Attorneys for both Hood and Schmidle have opposed the subpoenas for the reporter, arguing that a journalist’s documents and testimony are not relevant to a case that concerns the alleged behavior of Chicago police officers in the early 1990s.
Attorneys for the city of Chicago’s attorneys and the other defendants in Hood’s civil rights have argued that Schmidle’s testimony is essential, using a theory that puts Schmidle at the center of the action.
The defendants’ attorneys have argued that Hood’s civil rights were not violated because he actually is guilty of murder and his murder conviction should not have been vacated. They argue that journalists like Schmidle were tricked into writing a false narrative, which in turn prompted Governor Quinn to commute Hood’s sentence and pressure the state attorney’s office to get Hood’s conviction thrown out.
On July 23, Schmidle’s attorneys asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to quash the two deposition subpoenas, on the grounds that the subpoenas were improperly served, Schmidle’s testimony was unnecessary and Schmidle could not be forced to testify because he was a journalist.
The defendants’ attorneys defended their decision to subpoena Schmidle’s testimony, filing a response to Schmidle’s motion to quash that detailed their quasi-conspiratorial theory about Schmidle’s central role in getting Hood’s conviction tossed out.
“Defendants seek to take Schmidle’s deposition to explore his role in Hood’s coordinated media campaign, because that campaign was critical to Hood convincing Gov. Quinn to grant clemency,” the defendants’ attorneys wrote.
On Oct. 18, Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia District Court ordered the two deposition subpoenas quashed. Mehta found that, while the subpoenas had been properly served, the defendants had not shown that they had “exhausted every reasonable alternative source of information,” which they must do before forcing a journalist to testify. If the defendants wanted to learn about Schmidle’s communications with his sources, Mehta said, then they should subpoena those sources, rather than Schmidle.
Through a New Yorker spokeswoman, Schmidle declined to comment.
A portion of the subpoena seeking testimony from reporter Nicholas Schmidle about a 2014 article published in The New Yorker
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,None,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-10-01 17:59:22.831625+00:00,2023-07-05 20:50:23.133481+00:00,BuzzFeed receives first subpoena in ongoing Unsworth-Musk defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/buzzfeed-receives-first-subpoena-ongoing-unsworth-musk-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 20:50:23.029831+00:00,,LegalOrder object (61),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-06-14,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"BuzzFeed News was issued its first subpoena in the unfolding case between caver Vernon Unsworth and Tesla CEO Elon Musk on June 14, 2019. The outlet and one of its reporters subsequently received four additional subpoenas.
Unsworth is suing Musk for defamation, alleging that the tech executive repeatedly labeled him a pedophile without evidence on Twitter and in communications with BuzzFeed senior tech journalist Ryan Mac, the latter of which were published by the outlet.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reviewed the subpoena, which was filed by counsel for Musk. The subpoena ordered BuzzFeed to produce copies of two articles published by the outlet in August and September 2018, BuzzFeed’s communications with Unsworth and Musk, and documentation of BuzzFeed’s policies concerning “off the record” or “on background” conversations.
The subpoena also requested all documents concerning any payments, income, stipends, or gifts BuzzFeed received in exchange for the two articles containing Musk’s statements about Unsworth.
Lawyers representing BuzzFeed filed objections to the demand for the outlet’s communications with Musk and Unsworth on July 1, citing both parties’ access to these documents and the public availability of BuzzFeed’s News Standards and Ethics Guide. They also wrote that, consistent with the ethics guidelines, the outlet does not accept any form of payment or gifts to publish articles and therefore no documents are responsive to that request.
A portion of the first subpoena BuzzFeed received as part of a defamation case between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the caver Vernon Unsworth.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['IGNORED'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,BuzzFeed News,,,, 2019-06-11 17:31:41.144615+00:00,2024-01-17 15:45:14.393785+00:00,"Student journalist subpoenaed for documents and reporting materials as part of dispute between university, foundation",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/student-journalist-subpoenaed-documents-and-reporting-materials-part-dispute-between-university-foundation/,2024-01-17 15:45:14.281048+00:00,,LegalOrder object (60),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Euirim Choi (The Chicago Maroon),,2019-05-22,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"Student journalist Euirim Choi was served a subpoena on May 22, 2019, in connection with a lawsuit between The Thomas L. Pearson and The Pearson Family Members Foundation and the University of Chicago. Choi is the former editor of the university’s student newspaper, The Chicago Maroon, and has been asked for documents and communications pertaining to an article he wrote as editor.
On March 5, 2018, The Maroon published Choi’s article on the unravelling of relations between the university and the foundation over the course of a year. The foundation and university had filed a lawsuit and countersuit, respectively, contesting a $100 million donation pledged by the foundation.
The article was based on documents included in a 66-page stack found in a subway trash can in northern Chicago and brought to the newspaper’s office in the summer of 2017, The Maroon reported. While The Maroon published a summary of some of the documents that August, it did not include documents connected to the Pearsons or the Institute they were funding.
“The Maroon decided not to publish or mention the Pearson Institute documents, which were marked ‘privileged and confidential attorney-client communication,’ in order to avoid escalating a still-nascent dispute,” Choi wrote in his report the following March. But, as the lawsuit moved forward, the paper decided to publish the documents to provide context on the dispute.
Some handwritten notes were redacted from the documents shared with the piece, Choi wrote, in order to obscure the identity of the source. Even though the newspaper was unaware of the original owner’s identity, they did not know whether the documents had been intentionally leaked.
The foundation filed a subpoena against The Maroon on May 17, asking not only for the unredacted document, but “all other documents and communications related thereto or obtained in connection therewith, including without limitation the ‘66 pages of internal university documents’ referenced” in Choi’s article.
Choi told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the current editors at The Maroon reached out to him once they received the subpoena, as he was the only remaining person with access to the documents. Though they had made six copies, Choi said, the original documents were lost and all but his digital copy were deliberately destroyed.
When the foundation was informed that it would have to pursue the documents through Choi, it issued him a subpoena on May 22. In addition to the unredacted documents, the subpoena requested information on Choi’s reporting process, including any documents or evidence on how The Maroon obtained the documents and the identity of the author, if known. The deadline for response was June 3.
Peter Scheer, board president of the First Amendment Coalition, told CNN Business that the fact Choi is a student journalist “could complicate matters.”
“It could be up for debate whether a student journalist is granted the same protections as a journalist reporting as their full-time job,” Scheer said.
Matt Topic, a government transparency and media lawyer who is representing Choi pro-bono, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he is confident that the qualified privilege granted by Illinois’ Shield Law applies to Choi.
The statute defines a reporter as “any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full-time or part-time basis.”
Choi told the Tracker that he and Topic had filed a response to the subpoena and are continuing to fight it.
Euirim Choi was served with a subpoena for documents and work product from his time as editor of the student newspaper at the University of Chicago.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,student journalism,,, 2019-06-11 17:17:39.665354+00:00,2023-07-12 23:32:08.249201+00:00,Student newspaper subpoenaed for documents and reporting materials as part of $100 million dispute,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/student-newspaper-subpoenaed-documents-and-reporting-materials-part-100-million-dispute/,2023-07-12 23:32:08.088960+00:00,,LegalOrder object (59),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-05-17,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"The Chicago Maroon, the University of Chicago’s student newspaper, was served a subpoena on May 17, 2019, in connection with a lawsuit between The Thomas L. Pearson and The Pearson Family Members Foundation and the university.
On March 5, 2018, The Maroon published an article written by then-editor Euirim Choi on the unravelling of relations between the university and the foundation over the course of a year. The foundation and university had filed a lawsuit and countersuit, respectively, contesting a $100 million donation pledged by the foundation.
The article was based on documents included in a 66-page stack found in a subway trash can in northern Chicago and brought to the newspaper’s office in the summer of 2017, The Maroon reported. While The Maroon published a summary of some of the documents that August, it did not include documents connected to the Pearsons or the Institute they were funding.
“The Maroon decided not to publish or mention the Pearson Institute documents, which were marked ‘privileged and confidential attorney-client communication,’ in order to avoid escalating a still-nascent dispute,” Choi wrote in his report the following March. But, as the lawsuit was moving forward, the paper decided to publish the documents to provide context on the dispute.
Some handwritten notes were redacted from the documents shared with the piece, Choi wrote, in order to obscure the identity of the source. Even though the newspaper was unaware of the original owner’s identity, they did not know whether the documents had been intentionally leaked.
The foundation filed a subpoena against The Maroon on May 17 asking not only for the unredacted document, but “all other documents and communications related thereto or obtained in connection therewith, including without limitation the ‘66 pages of internal university documents’ referenced” in Choi’s article.
When the foundation discovered that only Choi, and not the student newspaper, has access to the documents, it filed a subpoena against him on May 22. Choi said the foundation’s subpoena against The Maroon has been left active, however, to satisfy that the foundation is using all avenues of discovery.
As is the case with Choi, some First Amendment scholars are concerned that Illinois’s shield law may not be applicable to The Maroon as it is a student newspaper.
The statute defines a news medium in part as, “any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation.” The Maroon appears to meet this definition.
Choi told the Tracker that the current editors at The Maroon informed the Pearson Foundation that they cannot provide the requested documents because they are no longer in possession of any copies. The University of Chicago told WBEZ News in a statement that it has reached out to staff at The Maroon to help find capable legal counsel and that they recognize the editorial independence of the paper and its staff.
The independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago, The Chicago Maroon, has been subpoenaed by a private foundation for documents used in reporting.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,The Chicago Maroon,student journalism,,, 2019-05-14 16:31:23.663401+00:00,2024-01-12 16:38:06.390891+00:00,"San Francisco police use search warrant to raid home, office of independent journalist",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/san-francisco-police-use-search-warrant-raid-home-office-independent-journalist-source-material/,2024-01-12 16:38:06.212620+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (56), LegalOrder object (57), LegalOrder object (58)","(2020-03-03 10:29:00+00:00) San Francisco to pay $369,000 following raids of journalist Bryan Carmody, (2020-05-26 14:52:00+00:00) San Francisco police agree to inform officers of press protections following raid, (2019-05-21 14:02:00+00:00) Equipment seized in raid returned to Carmody, (2019-08-02 16:15:00+00:00) San Francisco judges quash three more warrants used in raid of independent journalist Bryan Carmody's home, office and phone records","Arrest/Criminal Charge, Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,"camera: count of 2, cellphone: count of 12, computer: count of 11, storage device: count of 11, work product: count of 3",,Bryan Carmody (North Bay News),,2019-05-10,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"On May 10, 2019, San Francisco police officers raided the home and office of freelance journalist Bryan Carmody as part of an investigation into one of Carmody’s confidential sources.
Carmody told the Los Angeles Times that he awoke to 10 or so officers from the San Francisco Police Department banging on his front gate with a sledgehammer. He said he allowed them in after being shown a search warrant signed by a state court judge. The SFPD officers then handcuffed him and searched his house with guns drawn.
Carmody was not formally arrested or charged with any crime, but he was detained for more than five hours. When he was finally released, the SFPD gave him a receipt showing that he had been in police custody from 8:22 a.m. to 1:55 p.m.
While Carmody was in SFPD custody, two FBI agents asked to interview him, but he refused and requested an attorney. An FBI spokeswoman later told the Times that the FBI agents were not involved in the search of Carmody’s house. Technically speaking, Carmody was only raided by the SFPD, not by federal agents.
During the raid on Carmody’s house, the SFPD learned that Carmody also used a separate office space for his independent media company, North Bay News, and quickly obtained a search warrant for the office space, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
In the end, the officers who searched Carmody’s house ended up seizing multiple notebooks, computers, phones, and cameras, while those who searched his office seized a USB thumb drive, multiple CDs, and a copy of a confidential police report into the death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.
A source had leaked that police report to Carmody shortly after Adachi died unexpectedly on Feb. 22. The police report included salacious details about Adachi’s drug use and possible extramarital affair, and Carmody used the leaked report as the centerpiece of a story about Adachi’s death. Carmody sold his story on Adachi’s death to local TV news stations, who ran segments about it.
Progressive politicians roundly condemned the sensationalist coverage of Adachi’s death and accused the SFPD of deliberately leaking the police report to the media in order to smear Adachi, who had been a frequent critic of the police department. The SFPD also condemned the leak and pledged to track down the source of the police report.
According to the Chronicle, SFPD Captain William Braconi testified during a special hearing in April that the police department had launched both an internal administrative probe and a criminal investigation into the leak.
A few weeks before the May 10 raid, two San Francisco police officers visited Carmody and asked him to identify the source who had leaked him a copy of the police report. Carmody refused. Carmody told the California Globe that when he refused, the officers warned him that if he did not identify his source, then he could be subject to a federal grand jury subpoena.
But Carmody never received a subpoena, either from a federal grand jury or a state prosecutor, which he could have contested in court. Instead, a state court judge secretly authorized the SFPD to raid his house and seize his devices.
David Stevenson, a spokesman for the SFPD, said that the raid on Carmody was part of the SFPD’s criminal investigation.
“The citizens and leaders of the City of San Francisco have demanded a complete and thorough investigation into this leak, and this action represents a step in the process of investigating a potential case of obstruction of justice along with the illegal distribution of confidential police material,” he told the Times.
According to the Times, two judges of the San Francisco Superior Court — Gail Dekreon and Victor Hwang — approved the warrants to search Carmody’s house and office, respectively.
It is not clear who requested the warrants. A spokeswoman for the San Francisco district attorney’s office told the Times that the office was not involved in preparing the warrants.
Nor is it clear whether Dekreon and Hwang knew that Carmody was a journalist when they authorized the searches of his house and office space
Thomas Burke, an attorney at Davis Wright & Tremaine who is representing Carmody, said that the raid violated Carmody’s First Amendment rights. He told the Times that the investigators should have issued a subpoena for the records they wanted from Carmody, rather than raiding his newsroom and seizing documents unrelated to the investigation.
“So much information has nothing to do with the purpose of their investigation,” he said. “If you are looking for one piece of information, that’s why you issue a subpoena.”
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who died in February, speaks with reporters. Police raided the home and office of journalist Bryan Carmody, seeking the source of a confidential police report about Adachi’s death.
",detained and released without being processed,San Francisco Police Department,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in full,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2019-06-21 15:34:37.027037+00:00,2019-08-07 17:01:51.825146+00:00,"Harvard Crimson reporter subpoenaed for reporting materials, testimony in defamation suit",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/harvard-crimson-reporter-subpoenaed-reporting-materials-testimony-defamation-suit/,2019-08-07 17:01:51.754863+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (54), LegalOrder object (55)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Shera Avi-Yonah (The Harvard Crimson),,2019-04-10,False,Cambridge,Massachusetts (MA),42.3751,-71.10561,"A reporter and multimedia editor for The Harvard Crimson, the university’s daily paper, was issued a subpoena on April 10, 2019, to testify in a deposition and provide communications and reporting materials.
Shera Avi-Yonah was one of The Crimson reporters who had written on activities around and including a defamation lawsuit brought by Harvard College staff members Carl and Valencia Miller against Gail O’Keefe, a faculty dean.
The defamation suit stemmed from interactions with a student activist and another faculty dean’s decision to represent Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer who is facing multiple allegations of sexual assault. Other journalists involved in the reporting did not receive subpoenas.
The Crimson reported that the subpoena specifically requested all of Avi-Yonah’s communications and documents “concerning” the Millers, as well as communications and documents related to the faculty deans and student activist Danu Mudannayake, who is also on staff at The Crimson.
The subpoena also required Avi-Yonah to testify at a May 14 deposition.
Robert Bertsche, an attorney representing The Crimson, filed a written objection to the subpoena on April 19. The Millers’ attorney, George Leontire, emailed a statement on his clients’ behalf a few days later communicating their intention to bring a motion to compel Avi-Yonah’s testimony.
Leontire also stated that he anticipated issuing “numerous other subpoenas,” and would not hesitate to depose other Crimson staff.
“If I believe other individuals at the Crimson have relevant or probative information relative to Dean Gal O’keefe’s [sic] defamation of the Millers I will seek to subpoena such individuals,” wrote Leontire, according to The Crimson.
Crimson President Kristine Guillaume wrote in an emailed statement to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the paper would resist the subpoena because the reporter is not a party to the suit, citing the First Amendment.
Massachusetts does not have a shield law in place, though courts have recognized reporter’s privilege to protect their sources and reporting material under “common law.”
The president for The Harvard Crimson, the university’s daily newspaper, said the paper would resist a subpoena directed at a reporter’s communications.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,None,None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,student journalism,,, 2019-06-07 20:30:15.035851+00:00,2023-04-03 15:44:24.443814+00:00,New York County Supreme Court judge quashes subpoena for HBO documentary outtakes,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-york-county-supreme-court-judge-quashes-subpoena-hbo-documentary-outtakes/,2023-04-03 15:44:24.344123+00:00,,LegalOrder object (53),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,"Dwayne ""The Rock"" Johnson (HBO)",,2019-03-27,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"New York County Supreme Court Judge Carol Edmead quashed a subpoena for outtakes from the HBO documentary “Rock and a Hard Place” on June 5, 2019, citing New York’s shield law.
Christy Laster, a former correctional officer who appeared in the documentary, stands charged of bribery, grand theft and extortion, but alleged the footage she sought through the subpoena would exonerate her, according to the ruling. Laster argued that because Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson appeared in and produced the documentary, it was rendered a “celebrity reality TV show” and therefore would not be protected under the statute.
Edmead dismissed this categorization, writing in her decision that Laster “cites no authority for the notion that the mere involvement of a celebrity in a project renders it somehow incapable of being classified as a documentary, or that a celebrity known for other endeavors cannot be deemed a ‘journalist’ under the [shield law].”
In addition to his credit as an executive producer for “Rock and a Hard Place,” Johnson was the executive producer of the episode “Stand Your Ground” in the “Finding Justice” series and of the feature documentary “Racing Dreams.”
The New York County Supreme Court ruled that the state’s shield law applies to Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in his role producing the 2017 documentary film, “Rock and a Hard Place.”
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-03-23 20:27:58.242506+00:00,2023-07-13 22:35:54.868665+00:00,"Nevada judge orders online journalist to reveal sources, says not protected by shield law",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/nevada-judges-orders-online-journalist-reveal-sources-says-not-protected-shield-law/,2023-07-13 22:35:54.741469+00:00,,LegalOrder object (52),"(2019-12-05 16:03:00+00:00) Supreme Court of Nevada rules that shield law applies to digital media, too, (2020-03-19 09:16:00+00:00) Nevada state judge says online publisher can’t be further compelled for confidential sources, (2020-06-15 13:24:00+00:00) District judge dismisses defamation suit against Nevada digital reporter",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Sam Toll (The Storey Teller),,2019-03-04,False,Carson City,Nevada (NV),39.1638,-119.7674,"A Nevada state court judge issued an order on March 4, 2019, to compel an online journalist to reveal his confidential sources, ruling that because he did not work for a print publication he did not qualify as a journalist—and was thus not covered by Nevada's shield law at the time.
Sam Toll founded the online news site the Storey Teller, covering Storey County, Nevada, in February 2017 and joined the state press association in August 2017. Toll was sued for defamation in December 2017 by Lance Gilman, a Storey County commissioner and owner of the Mustang Ranch, a legal brothel. In five stories, published between April and December 2017, Toll published claims that Gilman lives outside of Storey County, meaning he fails to meet the residency requirement to hold county office under Nevada law. The defamation suit demands Toll produces the sources of any information he procured before August 2017.
Nevada's shield law—considered to be one of the most robust in the nation—states that "[n]o reporter, former reporter or editorial employee of any newspaper, periodical or press association ... may be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceedings, trial or investigation." But because this law was passed in 1969, some 14 years before the inception of the internet, it does not explicitly extend this protection to reporters for online publications.
In what has been criticized as an unduly narrow reading of the law, Judge James Wilson found that "[b]ecause Toll was not a reporter for a newspaper or press association before August of 2017 he was not covered by the news media privilege before August 2017, and therefore, the motion to compel must be granted as to any source of information obtained or procured by Toll before August of 2017."
Wilson ruled that because the Storey Teller is an online-only publication, it "is not a newspaper and, therefore the news media privilege is not available to Toll under the 'reporter of a newspaper' provision of [Nevada's shield law]."
In at least two other instances, Nevada courts have ruled that web-only publications were covered by the shield law, according to the Reno Gazette Journal. “My understanding is that it’s the first ruling of its kind and actually conflicts with other rulings,” Richard Karpel, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, told the newspaper.
Toll's lawyers filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the state Supreme Court on March 18. "While we respect Judge Wilson, we fundamentally disagree that an online journalist should be compelled to reveal their sources because they publish news articles in an online newspaper instead of traditional print newspaper," Luke Busby, one of Toll's attorneys, wrote in a statement. "Such a ruling undermines the protection of fundamental Constitutional principles of freedom of speech and of the press and stifles the free flow of information that is essential for any free society to exist."
On March 22, the Supreme Court stayed Gilman’s discovery request, pending review of Toll’s writ of prohibition. A deposition had been scheduled for March 25.
Other critics opined that Judge Wilson was splitting hairs in his order. "Unlike too many jobs in this country there is no such thing as a licensed journalist," newspaper columnist Thomas Mitchell wrote in the Elko Daily Free Press.
Toll told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he would go to jail, if necessary, to protect his sources. But he worried that if this ruling stands, it could have a chilling effect on online media in Nevada.
"It would be potentially devastating for people who report on matters of public interest to not be able to protect whistleblowers," Toll said. "Do I relish going to jail? No. But for the people behind me, who currently have an online-only presence, I owe it to them to stand my ground."
A Nevada judge has ruled that journalist Sam Toll is not protected under the state's shield laws because he publishes exclusively online.
In March and April 2019, San Francisco police seized phone records for freelance journalist Bryan Carmody as part of an investigation into one of Carmody’s confidential sources.
On May 31, the San Francisco Police Department formally notified Carmody that it had obtained a warrant to seize his mobile phone records. In a letter to Carmody, SFPD Sgt. Joseph Obidi wrote: “Mr. Carmody is being investigated as a co-conspirator in the theft of the San Francisco Police report, involving the death investigation of Jeff Adachi.”
Adachi, the San Francisco Public Defender, died unexpectedly on Feb. 22. Shortly after, Carmody obtained a copy of an SFPD report into Adachi’s death. The police report included salacious details about Adachi’s drug use and possible extramarital affair, and Carmody used the leaked report as the centerpiece of a story about Adachi’s death. Carmody sold his story on Adachi’s death to local TV news stations, who ran segments about the police report.
Sgt. Obidi’s May 31 letter to Carmody stated that the SFPD had executed a search warrant on March 1 to compel Verizon to turn over Carmody’s mobile phone records, including “subscriber information, call detail records, SMS usage, mobile data usage, cell tower data,” for the period of time between 8:33 p.m. on Feb. 22 and 10:44 p.m. on Feb. 23.
On June 1, Carmody received two more letters from Sgt. Obidi, notifying him that police had executed further warrants on March 13 and April 16 for his mobile phone records.
The March 13 warrant, like the earlier one executed on March 1, requested Verizon hand over Carmody’s mobile phone records for the same time period—between 8:33 p.m. on Feb. 22 and 10:44 p.m. on Feb. 23.
The April 16 warrant was served on both Verizon and AT&T and requested that the two carriers hand over mobile phone records for three different phone numbers for the time period between 1:13 p.m. on April 12 and 11:59 p.m. on April 15.
In addition to the warrants to seize Carmody’s mobile phone records, the SFPD obtained search warrants for Carmody’s home and office. On May 10, SFPD officers raided Carmody’s home and office and the reporter’s notebooks, computers, phones, and cameras.
Through a certified letter after the fact, independent journalist Bryan Carmody learned of three separate search warrants executed on his phone records by the San Francisco police department.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],"Verizon, AT&T",telecom company,Third-party,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2019-06-06 14:55:26.942635+00:00,2023-04-21 16:14:22.245205+00:00,Pennsylvania judge denies energy company’s subpoena of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette staff,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/pennsylvania-judge-denies-energy-companys-subpoena-of-pittsburgh-post-gazette-staff/,2023-04-21 16:14:22.121937+00:00,,LegalOrder object (47),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Don Hopey (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette),,2019-02-25,False,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania (PA),40.44062,-79.99589,"Staff of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette were subpoenaed in February 2019 by Range Resources while reporting around a confidential settlement between the gas-drilling company and Pennsylvania residents. On May 3, a Washington County judge quashed the requests for testimony, sources, notes and documents from former Post-Gazette reporter Don Hopey and two other journalists.
Beginning in January, the Post-Gazette sought to unseal an August 2018 settlement between Range and families who alleged they had experienced serious health problems due to exposure to leaks, spills and air pollution emanating from a nearby company well. Range fought the outlet’s petition, claiming the request was not timely.
Range lawyers subpoenaed Hopey, reporter David Templeton and former Managing Editor Sally Stapleton on Feb. 25 to uncover the reporters’ sources and obtain their notes and documents related to the case, the Post-Gazette reported. The outlet entered its objection to all three subpoenas on March 11, according to the court docket.
In her May ruling quashing the subpoenas, Washington County Common Pleas Court President Judge Katherine Emery cited Pennsylvania’s shield law and its protection of news sources.
“The Shield Law must be liberally construed in favor of the news media,” Emery wrote in her order and opinion. “Under this law, the employees of the newspaper cannot be required to disclose any information that could lead to the disclosure of their sources.”
The Post-Gazette also asked Emery to order Range to cover the newspaper’s legal fees, calling the subpoenas “a brazen and legally abusive attempt to harass and intimidate the Post-Gazette.” Emery denied that request.
In a related incident, the same judge barred Pittsburgh-based reporter Reid Frazier from directly or indirectly publishing contents of the settlement terms on May 30, which the reporter had inadvertently obtained from a glitch in the court’s software. On June 4, Range told Emery it would publicly release the settlement terms, Frazier reported, effectively ending the Post-Gazette’s court action to unseal it and the publishing injunction. Read more on the prior restraint here.
A notice of deposition to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Don Hopey, one of three people in the newsroom to ordered to turn over work product, stemming from the paper's request to unseal a private settlement.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,environmentalism,,, 2023-04-21 15:56:34.603719+00:00,2023-04-21 16:12:24.646725+00:00,Judge quashes energy company’s subpoena of former Post-Gazette managing editor,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/judge-quashes-energy-companys-subpoena-of-former-post-gazette-managing-editor/,2023-04-21 16:12:24.546612+00:00,,LegalOrder object (49),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Sally Stapleton (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette),,2019-02-25,False,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania (PA),40.44062,-79.99589,"Staff of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette were subpoenaed in February 2019 by Range Resources while reporting around a confidential settlement between the gas-drilling company and Pennsylvania residents. On May 3, a Washington County judge quashed the requests for testimony, sources, notes and documents from former Post-Gazette Managing Editor Sally Stapleton and two reporters.
Beginning in January, the Post-Gazette sought to unseal an August 2018 settlement between Range and families who alleged they had experienced serious health problems due to exposure to leaks, spills and air pollution emanating from a nearby company well. Range fought the outlet’s petition, claiming the request was not timely.
Range lawyers subpoenaed Stapleton and reporters Don Hopey and David Templeton on Feb. 25 to uncover the reporters’ sources and obtain their notes and documents related to the case, the Post-Gazette reported. The outlet entered its objection to all three subpoenas on March 11, according to the court docket.
In her May ruling quashing the subpoenas, Washington County Common Pleas Court President Judge Katherine Emery cited Pennsylvania’s shield law and its protection of news sources.
“The Shield Law must be liberally construed in favor of the news media,” Emery wrote in her order and opinion. “Under this law, the employees of the newspaper cannot be required to disclose any information that could lead to the disclosure of their sources.”
The Post-Gazette also asked Emery to order Range to cover the newspaper’s legal fees, calling the subpoenas “a brazen and legally abusive attempt to harass and intimidate the Post-Gazette.” Emery denied that request.
In a related incident, the same judge barred Pittsburgh-based reporter Reid Frazier from directly or indirectly publishing contents of the settlement terms on May 30, which the reporter had inadvertently obtained from a glitch in the court’s software. On June 4, Range told Emery it would publicly release the settlement terms, Frazier reported, effectively ending the Post-Gazette’s court action to unseal it and the publishing injunction. Read more on the prior restraint here.
Staff of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette were subpoenaed in February 2019 by Range Resources while reporting around a confidential settlement between the gas-drilling company and Pennsylvania residents. On May 3, a Washington County judge quashed the requests for testimony, sources, notes and documents from former Post-Gazette reporter David Templeton and two other journalists.
Beginning in January, the Post-Gazette sought to unseal an August 2018 settlement between Range and families who alleged they had experienced serious health problems due to exposure to leaks, spills and air pollution emanating from a nearby company well. Range fought the outlet’s petition, claiming the request was not timely.
Range lawyers subpoenaed Templeton, reporter Don Hopey and former Managing Editor Sally Stapleton on Feb. 25 to uncover the reporters’ sources and obtain their notes and documents related to the case, the Post-Gazette reported. The outlet entered its objection to all three subpoenas on March 11, according to the court docket.
In her May ruling quashing the subpoenas, Washington County Common Pleas Court President Judge Katherine Emery cited Pennsylvania’s shield law and its protection of news sources.
“The Shield Law must be liberally construed in favor of the news media,” Emery wrote in her order and opinion. “Under this law, the employees of the newspaper cannot be required to disclose any information that could lead to the disclosure of their sources.”
The Post-Gazette also asked Emery to order Range to cover the newspaper’s legal fees, calling the subpoenas “a brazen and legally abusive attempt to harass and intimidate the Post-Gazette.” Emery denied that request.
In a related incident, the same judge barred Pittsburgh-based reporter Reid Frazier from directly or indirectly publishing contents of the settlement terms on May 30, which the reporter had inadvertently obtained from a glitch in the court’s software. On June 4, Range told Emery it would publicly release the settlement terms, Frazier reported, effectively ending the Post-Gazette’s court action to unseal it and the publishing injunction. Read more on the prior restraint here.
In February, attorneys representing the city of Chicago subpoenaed The New Yorker staff writer Nicholas Schmidle to produce documents in relation to an article published in the magazine in 2014.
A set of separate subpoenas for the reporter’s testimony was served in June and quashed in October.
In 2014, Schmidle wrote a feature story for the New Yorker about Tyrone Hood, who had been convicted of murder in 1996 and sentenced to 75 years in prison. Schmidle’s article included evidence strongly suggesting that Hood was innocent.
In January 2015, outgoing Illinois governor Pat Quinn commuted the prison sentences of a number of prisoners, including Hood, on his last day in office. Because Hood received a commutation, not a pardon, he was let out of jail early but the murder conviction stayed on his record.
At the time, a spokeswoman for Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez told CBS 2 Chicago that Alvarez was “deeply disappointed” with the governor’s decision to commute Hood’s sentence.
Just a month later, though, Alvarez’s office announced that its Conviction Integrity Unit had completed a two-year investigation into Hood’s case, which concluded that Hood’s conviction should be vacated. Alvarez then asked a court to vacate Hood’s conviction, which the court did. Hood was now out of prison and cleared of the murder conviction.
In 2016, Hood filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Chicago and a number of Chicago police officers, accusing them of pressuring witnesses into falsely accusing him of murder.
On Feb. 22, 2019, the defendants’ attorneys mailed the reporter Schmidle a document subpoena. The extremely broad subpoena ordered him to turn over, among other things, “All Documents Nicholas Schmidle received from any person or entity in connection with researching, investigating, preparing or publishing any of the Articles” about Hood. Schmidle’s attorneys objected to the subpoena on March 13, and the defendants seemed to drop it.
In June 2019, Schmidle was served with a subpoena to testify in the case and a second, more complete copy of the same subpoena a week later.
Attorneys for both Hood and Schmidle have opposed the subpoenas for the reporter, arguing that a journalist’s documents and testimony are not relevant to a case that concerns the alleged behavior of Chicago police officers in the early 1990s.
Attorneys for the city of Chicago’s attorneys and the other defendants in Hood’s civil rights have argued that Schmidle’s testimony is essential, using a theory that puts Schmidle at the center of the action.
The defendants’ attorneys have argued that Hood’s civil rights were not violated because he actually is guilty of murder and his murder conviction should not have been vacated. They argue that journalists like Schmidle were tricked into writing a false narrative, which in turn prompted Governor Quinn to commute Hood’s sentence and pressure the state attorney’s office to get Hood’s conviction thrown out.
The current status of the Feb. 22 document subpoena is somewhat unclear. After Schmidle’s attorneys objected to the subpoena in March, the defendants never moved to compel Schmidle to turn over the documents. In effect, they dropped the subpoena. But on July 10, Schmidle received another copy of the document subpoena by email. Once again, Schmidle refused to turn over the documents and the defendants didn’t bother to press the matter.
Schmidle’s attorneys did not ask the judge to quash the document subpoena, but only because it seemed like the defendants had already given up on that one.
“Defendants have not moved to compel responses to the Document Subpoena, and therefore it is not at issue in this motion,” they wrote in the July 23 motion to quash the deposition subpoenas. That motion to quash was granted in October.
Through a New Yorker spokeswoman, Schmidle declined to comment.
A portion of the subpoena outlining broad requests for reporter Nicholas Schmidle's work product
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['DROPPED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2020-02-25 21:23:39.708099+00:00,2020-02-25 21:23:39.708099+00:00,Second subpoena issued for content of Illinois watchdog’s Dropbox account,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/second-subpoena-issued-for-content-of-illinois-watchdogs-dropbox-account/,2020-02-25 21:23:39.643943+00:00,,LegalOrder object (45),"(2019-07-10 16:08:00+00:00) Judge quashes subpoena for third-party work product, citing the state's reporter's privilege",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-02-22,False,Algonquin Township,Illinois (IL),None,None,"A lawyer representing Algonquin Township, Illinois, filed a second subpoena to compel the file-hosting service Dropbox to produce information on an account belonging to the Edgar County Watchdogs, an Illinois-based government watchdog blog.
The subpoena, issued on Feb. 22, 2019, requested much of the same information as the first subpoena filed in January — the content, IP and email addresses of all users, users’ access histories, payment information and comments of the account.
The outlet is currently suing Algonquin Township for failing to provide records in response to 16 different public records requests, and the subpoena was issued in the context of that lawsuit.
Edgar County Watchdogs reported it filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which was heard in March.
“Illinois law protects media and reporters from things like this, but the Township Board has decided to keep piling on and incurring more legal bills,” blog co-founder John Kraft wrote. “Not just their own legal bills, but the township will also pay our legal bills when they lose this FOIA lawsuit.”
In March, a McHenry County Court judge granted a stay in the production of the requested materials until a ruling could be made on the motion to quash, Edgar County Watchdogs reported. The judge also confirmed that the first subpoena was quashed.
Edgar County Watchdogs shared court documents with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that show the motion to quash was denied on April 16, but the outlet filed a motion for the judge to reconsider.
Kraft told the Tracker that the subpoenas would have a serious impact on the outlet if it weren’t for the support of other organizations, like the Press Freedom Defense Fund.
“We do not have the money to hire an attorney and do the paperwork to fight these subpoenas. Without these grants we wouldn’t be able to do it,” Kraft said. “We’d have to roll over and give them what they ask for.”
A portion of a subpoena for the Edgar County Watchdog's Dropbox account information
,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['QUASHED'],Dropbox,tech company,Third-party,subpoena,State,None,False,None,Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2019-04-12 17:00:16.940403+00:00,2023-04-04 13:27:08.122385+00:00,Subpoena issued for Illinois-based government watchdog’s communications,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-issued-illinois-based-government-watchdogs-communications/,2023-04-04 13:27:08.010087+00:00,,LegalOrder object (44),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-02-19,False,Glen Ellyn,Illinois (IL),41.87753,-88.06701,"Illinois-based government watchdog blog Edgar County Watchdogs has been subpoenaed for communications and documents relating to articles involving College of DuPage, a community college in Illinois.
As part of a civil lawsuit brought by former College of DuPage president Robert Breuder against the college, the Feb. 19, 2019, subpoena ordered Edgar County Watchdogs to produce communications between co-founders of the group, Kirk Allen and John Kraft, and numerous other entities including news organizations the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune. It also orders the group to turn over copies of relevant Freedom of Information Act requests and records received.
“We wrote a lot of articles on the College DuPage and the former president and contractors, as well as change orders that were made without proper board approval and crazy expenses by the college president,” Kraft told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. “[Breuder] is suing the board members of the college for various civil rights violations, like his age and alleging lack of due process. They are working through discovery, and they’re trying to get communications between us, the board of the college, and various media outlets.”
Kraft noted that the FOIA requests and responsive records — which comprise thousands of pages — are already public records, so it isn’t necessary to order the group to produce them. “They can get them from the college,” he said.
The subpoena ordered the documents produced by April 1, but Kraft said that with the help of the group’s attorney, government transparency and media lawyer Matt Topic, they had secured an extension on compliance.
Topic confirmed that the group was granted an extension until May 1 to respond to the subpoena, and that that they will be opposing the order.
“[The subpoena] makes us spend time, money, and effort fighting this, instead of writing like we should be doing,” Kraft said.
Attorneys for Breuder did not immediately respond to request for comment.
In an unrelated case, Edgar County Watchdogs received a subpoena on Jan. 23 for information relating to the group’s Dropbox. The motion to quash that subpoena was granted on Feb. 11.
A portion of the subpoena for communications from Edgar County Watchdogs.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,None,State,None,False,None,Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2019-02-26 15:21:46.934752+00:00,2024-01-11 17:43:43.358279+00:00,"Journalist subpoenaed for reporting materials by Jason Miller, Trump’s former adviser",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-reporting-materials-jason-miller-trumps-former-adviser/,2024-01-11 17:43:43.251273+00:00,,LegalOrder object (43),"(2019-04-18 11:00:00+00:00) Defamation suit dismissed, (2019-08-27 14:02:00+00:00) Judge dismisses defamation lawsuit against Splinter, its managing editor and parent company",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,J. Arthur Bloom (Independent),,2019-02-04,False,Miami,Florida (FL),25.77427,-80.19366,"As part of a defamation lawsuit against Gizmodo Media Group, journalist J. Arthur Bloom has received a subpoena for his communications — including Facebook messages and emails — from legal counsel for a former Trump adviser, Jason Miller. Bloom is pushing back on the subpoena, claiming that reporter’s privilege protects him from disclosure of unpublished materials.
The subpoena, dated Feb. 4, 2019, orders Bloom to produce numerous reporting materials, communications, and documents by Feb. 22.
The subpoena was issued as part of a $100 million lawsuit filed by Miller against Gizmodo Media Group and its reporter Katherine Krueger over an article Kruger authored for Splinter News. The article cites court documents filed by A.J. Delgado, another former Trump adviser who was in a relationship with Miller, alleging that Miller had gotten another woman pregnant and drugged her. Later, Chapo Trap House podcast co-host Will Menaker was added to the lawsuit.
The subpoena orders Bloom to produce communications he may have had with Krueger or Delgado. It also demanded any of Bloom’s reporting materials on investigations into Miller’s sexual relationships, including notes, memos, or records created during his research.
Bloom was served the subpoena at his home on the evening of Feb. 5. He responded to the subpoena with an objection letter, writing that any subpoenas requiring the disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected material should be quashed.
“Any information I may have relating to the material requested in Exhibit A would have been developed in my capacity as a professional journalist (as defined by Section 90.5015 of the Florida Statutes) at the time, investigating a story I did not run with,” his objection reads.
Miller’s attorney Shane B. Vogt of Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel PA did not respond to request for comment.
In an interview with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Bloom took particular issue with the subpoena’s demand for relevant social media posts, including tweets. He noted that Miller had blocked Bloom on Twitter, so if Miller wanted copies of his tweets, he could simply unblock him and view the posts.
When a process server called him, Bloom said he was asked if he knew where to find reporter Yashar Ali, indicating that he would also receive a subpoena.
Ali did not immediately respond to requests for comment and questions as to whether he was also served a subpoena by Miller’s legal team.
A portion of the subpoena issued to journalist J. Arthur Bloom for his work product and social media communications. Shared by the journalist to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker; edited in 2023 to remove identifying information.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['IGNORED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2019-02-26 17:00:02.210369+00:00,2023-03-31 23:11:58.188281+00:00,Subpoena issued for contents of Illinois government watchdog’s Dropbox account,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-issued-contents-illinois-government-watchdogs-dropbox-account/,2023-03-31 23:11:58.094890+00:00,,LegalOrder object (42),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2019-01-23,False,Algonquin Township,Illinois (IL),None,None,"A lawyer representing Algonquin Township, Illinois, subpoenaed Dropbox to compel the California-based tech company to produce information about an account belonging to the Edgar County Watchdogs, an Illinois-based government watchdog blog.
The subpoena, issued on Jan. 23, 2019, requested detailed information about a Dropbox folder belonging to the watchdog group titled “Algonquin Township,” including content, IP and email addresses of all users, payment information, and comments.
John Kraft, one of the co-founders of Edgar County Watchdogs, found the request alarming. “In our opinion they are trying to chill public speaking. If they were successful, sources would be reluctant to contact reporters or fear they should be outed with a subpoena,” Kraft told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
In their emergency motion to quash, the lawyer for Edgar County Watchdogs, Denise M. Ambroziak, wrote that the subpoena both “violates the reporter’s privilege” and “lacks relevance to the subject matter of the FOIA suit, is outside of the scope, and fails to comply with local rules.”
Edgar County Watchdogs is currently suing Algonquin Township for failing to provide records in response to 16 different public records requests, and the subpoena was issued in the context of that lawsuit. “Instead of just answering our FOIA requests they’re spending all this money to try and find out who is feeding us information,” Kraft said.
Ambroziak argued in the motion that Algonquin Township had not met the threshold to divest reporter’s privilege. Under Illinois law, the party seeking to do so must prove such information being sought would be relevant to the proceeding, that such information is in the public interest, and that they have exhausted all other means of obtaining that information. “There is no public interest supported by disclosing the contents of the Plaintiff’s Dropbox Account other than to simply go on an improper fishing expedition for some undisclosed and unknown reason,” the motion continues.
Neither Kraft nor his attorney received a copy of the subpoena via electronic or postal mail, and did not become aware of its existence until a third party provided it to them on Feb. 8, according to the motion. Also on that day, James Kelly, the lawyer for Algonquin Township, wrote a letter to the lawyer for Edgar County Watchdogs stating that the subpoena was “rejected and cannot be served,” and so there was no need to file the emergency motion to quash the subpoena. They opted to file the motion anyway, and it was granted on Feb. 11, according to Kraft and an article in the Cook County Record.
Kelly and Township Clerk Karen Lukasik did not return multiple requests for comment.
Edgar County Watchdogs is a investigative blog based in southern Illinois that focuses on local government transparency. According to the National Review, the investigative work conducted by Kraft and co-founder Kirk Allen has resulted in "seven ongoing federal investigations."
A portion of the subpoena from Algonquin Township, Illinois, to Dropbox for access to the contents of a folder belonging to Edgar County Watchdogs.
Veteran New York Post reporter Susan Edelman was subpoenaed on Jan. 7, 2019, in an ongoing lawsuit between a former New York firefighter and the department. A federal magistrate judge quashed the subpoena on Aug. 9, and a federal district court judge affirmed that decision on Nov. 12.
Michael Johnson, the plaintiff, alleges in his civil lawsuit filed in November 2016 that he was discriminated against at FDNY due to his status as an African American “priority hire” who joined the department in 2014. He was hired following a court order to remedy historically discriminatory hiring practices at FDNY. Johnson alleges that he was the subject of strategic leaks to the media intended to portray him as a coward who refused to fight fires.
Edelman was the co-author of a May 2015 New York Post story titled “Firefighters fear colleague who routinely flees fires.” The piece began, “He's a firefighter in name only. Michael D. Johnson won’t fight fires. Instead, he stays on the sidelines as his Engine Company 257 colleagues rush into burning buildings, FDNY insiders told the Post.”
The 2019 subpoena was issued demanding Edelman appear at a Jan. 29 deposition at the New York office of one of Johnson’s attorneys. After negotiations with Johnson’s attorneys and several extensions granted by the court, Edelman’s attorneys filed a motion to quash the subpoena on June 4.
Edelman penned an affidavit in support of the motion, in which she argues the importance of keeping the identities of her sources confidential. “My reporting for the Post includes investigating corruption, waste, and misconduct within government agencies in New York City,” she writes. “The municipal government sources who provide me information on these and other issues could be subject to serious professional discipline—or even lose their job—for speaking with me. It is therefore absolutely critical that my sources trust that I will maintain their confidentiality.”
Lawyers for Johnson argued in court filings that Edelman had waived her reporter’s privilege because she, in a 2015 phone call with one of Johnson’s attorneys, mentioned she was getting a call on another line from Jake Lemonda, a FDNY battalion chief. Edelman’s attorney, Robert Balin, disagreed, writing in a filing, “Ms. Edelman said nothing about the substance of any conversations she had with Mr. Lemonda, whether he provided her with any information, or if he did, whether any information he provided was used in—or even connected to—the Article.”
Vera M. Scanlon, a federal magistrate judge, granted the order quashing the subpoena on Aug. 9. The plaintiff’s counsel filed an objection to Scanlon’s order, writing that the judge “erred when she found that all of Edelman’s discussions with her sources were confidential” and that the “standard for non-confidentiality ought to apply.”
On Nov. 12, U.S. District Court Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto affirmed Scanlon’s order granting Edelman’s motion to quash the subpoena. “Judge Scanlon properly exercised her discretion when she held that Edelman's sources and other newsgathering information with respect to the Article were confidential and that plaintiff did not overcome his burden to compel disclosure of Edelman's information,” she found.
A portion of the 2019 subpoena seeking information on confidential sources from New York Post reporter Susan Edelman.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,testimony about confidential source,['QUASHED'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,,