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 2024-02-27 15:46:15.298362+00:00,2024-03-07 18:05:39.206859+00:00,New Yorker reporter subpoenaed by federal government in criminal trial,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-yorker-reporter-subpoenaed-by-federal-government-in-criminal-trial/,2024-03-07 18:05:39.093973+00:00,,LegalOrder object (272),"(2024-03-04 00:00:00+00:00) New Yorker reporter does not have to testify, judge rules",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Eric Lach (The New Yorker),,2024-02-15,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"
Eric Lach, a staff writer for The New Yorker, was subpoenaed by a federal prosecutor on Feb. 15, 2024, to testify about his reporting on a man accused of fraud, extortion and lying to federal law enforcement.
Lach began reporting on Brooklyn preacher Lamor Whitehead in 2022, according to an affidavit. Whitehead stands accused of stealing a parishioner’s savings and defrauding a businessman with claims that he could leverage his ties to Mayor Eric Adams and other city officials for financial gain, The Associated Press reported.
Lach spoke with the preacher several times that December and published an article about Whitehead and his relationship with Adams in January 2023.
The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York subpoenaed Lach just over a week before the criminal trial was scheduled to begin on Feb. 26. The subpoena orders Lach to testify during the trial to authenticate on-the-record statements from Whitehead in the published article.
Attorneys representing Lach filed a motion to quash the request on Feb. 19. In his accompanying affidavit, Lach voiced concerns that being forced to testify could impair not only his ability to report on Whitehead’s trial but his journalistic work generally.
“The prospect of being forced to testify in court about my news reporting is, frankly, chilling,” Lach said in his affidavit. “I often speak to criminal defendants as part of my reporting, and I am confident that criminal defendants — and other sources — will be less willing to speak to me as part of my reporting if they understand that I may be called to testify against them in their trial.”
The motion to quash argued that the subpoena is also highly invasive and would subject Lach to a cross-examination that could jeopardize his confidential reporting.
“In violation of the Department of Justice’s own guidelines, the Government seeks to compel the testimony of a journalist to authenticate a generic, run-of-the mill denial,” the motion said, noting that the statements were made after Whitehead knew he was the target of a government investigation.
The day before the subpoena was issued, the Justice Department released new guidelines for federal prosecutors limiting when they can seek journalists’ records: when the information is crucial for the prevention of a serious crime, when the journalist is the target of the investigation and when the records involve information that is already public.
To address concerns around the potential breadth of the cross-examination, Lach and his attorneys agreed to appear for a private interview with District Judge Lorna G. Schofield on Feb. 26.
A portion of a subpoena issued to New Yorker reporter Eric Lach on Feb. 15, 2024, by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, ordering him to testify about his reporting on a criminal defendant with ties to New York City’s mayor.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,Department of Justice,,, 2024-03-14 18:46:42.415061+00:00,2024-03-14 18:46:42.415061+00:00,Judge lifts Indybay gag order over voided search warrant,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/judge-lifts-indybay-gag-order-over-voided-search-warrant/,2024-03-14 18:46:42.230016+00:00,,LegalOrder object (273),,"Subpoena/Legal Order, Prior Restraint",,,,,,2024-01-24,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"San Francisco police on Jan. 24, 2024, obtained a warrant to search independent news outlet Indybay’s electronic data, along with a 90-day gag order preventing Indybay from discussing or writing about its existence, according to court documents.
The warrant, which police later decided against pursuing, sought to identify the author of an Indybay post who claimed to have vandalized the San Francisco Police Credit Union.
The nondisclosure order was ultimately lifted on March 7 by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Linda Colfax, allowing Indybay to speak publicly about the warrant. Also on March 7, the San Francisco Police Department said it had decided not to act on the warrant due to potential First Amendment issues.
The warrant stemmed from a Jan. 18 post on Indybay, published under the pseudonym “some anarchists,” in which the author took responsibility for having smashed windows at the credit union earlier that day in an “act of vengeance” on the one-year anniversary of the police shooting death of an environmental activist in Atlanta.
Indybay, a volunteer-run, community-sourced newswire also known as the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, allows anyone to self-publish articles, photos, videos and other material on the site. The posts are reviewed by Indybay editors, who according to the site’s editorial policies may combine them, make edits for spelling or grammar, or hide them if they are deemed “false, libelous, abusive … or hate speech.”
On Jan. 24, the police obtained the search warrant, which required Indybay to turn over information that would help identify the author of the story, such as IP addresses, website login credentials, and email addresses and phone numbers.
Indybay asked the police to withdraw the warrant on Jan. 29, arguing that it was illegal under California’s shield law and the federal Privacy Protection Act, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which provided the outlet with pro bono legal assistance. The SFPD told Indybay on Jan. 31 that it would take no further action on the warrant.
Indybay filed a motion on Feb. 22 not only to formally quash the warrant but also the nondisclosure order — which remained in effect — arguing that it violated the First Amendment as a “content-based prior restraint on speech.”
Colfax vacated the gag order on March 7, while also confirming that the search warrant had become void on Feb. 3, “as no search occurred and no records were received.”
EFF Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an email that “SFPD and the judge did not end up taking a position” on the argument that the search warrant was unlawful. “SFPD, instead, took the position that—regardless of whether the warrant was unlawful when it was first issued—it became void after 10 days when SFPD declined to pursue it further in the face of Indybay’s resistance,” he added.
Trujillo went on to say that Colfax supported that interpretation in her order, adding, “It was important for the judge to confirm that and give Indybay certainty on the record.”
SFPD, in a March 7 news release, said that when Police Chief William “Bill” Scott learned of the warrant, he “immediately ordered officers to not pursue it over questions about possible First Amendment and Freedom of the Press issues.”
The statement added that the police department is committed to supporting the free press and has policies and training related to California’s shield law. The SFPD had previously pledged to ensure that all employees were properly trained on journalist protections with regard to police searches and subpoenas as part of a settlement after a police raid and search of a journalist’s home in 2019.
A portion of a March 7, 2024, order by a San Francisco judge lifting a gag order that prohibited Indybay from disclosing a search warrant issued in January.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,warrant,State,struck down,False,[],Indybay,,,, 2024-01-31 19:15:54.349134+00:00,2024-03-10 20:03:29.489929+00:00,U.S. News subpoenaed for documents by San Francisco city attorney,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/us-news-subpoenaed-for-documents-by-san-francisco-city-attorney/,2024-03-10 20:03:29.402304+00:00,,LegalOrder object (270),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2024-01-09,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"U.S. News & World Report was issued two subpoenas on Jan. 9, 2024, by the city attorney for San Francisco, California, seeking information about its hospital rankings and related business dealings.
For more than three decades, the digital media company has produced multiple such rankings, including its Best Hospitals Honor Roll, Best Hospitals by Specialty and Best Children’s Hospitals Honor Roll. It also licenses out “badges” with those rankings to interested hospitals.
The subpoenas order U.S. News to answer written questions and produce documents pertaining to the rankings and U.S. News’ relationships with various health care providers.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu first demanded answers about the media company’s process for ranking hospitals in a letter in June 2023, citing his authority under the California Business and Professions Code to investigate potentially unlawful business practices. Chiu alleged that the rankings had come under scrutiny for what he described as their “poor and opaque methodology.”
In a lawsuit filed on Jan. 23, 2024, U.S. News defended its methodology, noting that detailed reports on how the ranking is compiled are published each year. The suit requested protective orders to prevent the city attorney’s office from enforcing the subpoenas and asked that the media company be awarded attorneys fees and costs.
“The Subpoenas make clear that the City Attorney is using governmental process to engage in viewpoint discrimination—and, indeed, is proceeding as though he holds censorial (or editorial) authority over how U.S. News performs its journalistic work ranking hospitals,” attorneys for U.S. News wrote. “It is flatly unconstitutional for the City Attorney to harass U.S. News due to his differing views on these rankings; his mounting harassment must be put to a stop.”
In a statement shared with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Chiu said it was “ironic” that U.S. News was claiming that its speech has been chilled “when the purpose of the company's lawsuit is to chill and impede a legitimate government investigation.”
“Despite U.S. News’ stated commitment to transparency, the company has spent months evading tough questions about its undisclosed financial links to the hospitals it ranks,” Chiu said. “U.S. News is not above the law, and its bullying litigation tactics will not deter us from standing up for patients and consumers.”
In its filing, however, U.S. News stated that it responded to Chiu’s initial letter — explaining its well-documented methodology and raising concerns about the potential infringement of its rights — and did not receive any additional communications from his office for nearly six months.
“The City Attorney’s actions pose a fundamental threat to our First Amendment rights and set a dangerous precedent for all media platforms and news organizations,” the lawsuit argues. It added that if Chiu's actions are allowed to stand, “any journalistic enterprise that provides analyses or opinions to the public—analyses or opinions that elected officials may wish to fault—may for that reason be subject to subpoena and investigation.”
A hearing in the case is scheduled for April 23.
A portion of a subpoena issued to the U.S. News & World Report on Jan. 9, 2024, ordering the news outlet to provide documents concerning its hospital rankings.
",None,None,None,None,False,3:24-cv-00395,['ONGOING'],Civil,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,State,None,False,[],U.S. News & World Report,,,, 2024-01-31 19:20:14.192860+00:00,2024-03-10 20:03:48.337612+00:00,U.S. News subpoenaed about hospital rankings by city attorney,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/us-news-subpoenaed-about-hospital-rankings-by-city-attorney/,2024-03-10 20:03:48.242467+00:00,,LegalOrder object (271),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2024-01-09,False,San Francisco,California (CA),37.77493,-122.41942,"U.S. News & World Report was issued two subpoenas on Jan. 9, 2024, by the city attorney for San Francisco, California, seeking information about its hospital rankings and related business dealings.
For more than three decades, the digital media company has produced multiple such rankings, including its Best Hospitals Honor Roll, Best Hospitals by Specialty and Best Children’s Hospitals Honor Roll. It also licenses out “badges” with those rankings to interested hospitals.
The subpoenas order U.S. News to answer written questions and produce documents pertaining to the rankings and U.S. News’ relationships with various health care providers.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu first demanded answers about the media company’s process for ranking hospitals in a letter in June 2023, citing his authority under the California Business and Professions Code to investigate potentially unlawful business practices. Chiu alleged that the rankings had come under scrutiny for what he described as their “poor and opaque methodology.”
In a lawsuit filed on Jan. 23, 2024, U.S. News defended its methodology, noting that detailed reports on how the ranking is compiled are published each year. The suit requested protective orders to prevent the city attorney’s office from enforcing the subpoenas and asked that the media company be awarded attorneys fees and costs.
“The Subpoenas make clear that the City Attorney is using governmental process to engage in viewpoint discrimination—and, indeed, is proceeding as though he holds censorial (or editorial) authority over how U.S. News performs its journalistic work ranking hospitals,” attorneys for U.S. News wrote. “It is flatly unconstitutional for the City Attorney to harass U.S. News due to his differing views on these rankings; his mounting harassment must be put to a stop.”
In a statement shared with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Chiu said it was “ironic” that U.S. News was claiming that its speech has been chilled “when the purpose of the company's lawsuit is to chill and impede a legitimate government investigation.”
“Despite U.S. News’ stated commitment to transparency, the company has spent months evading tough questions about its undisclosed financial links to the hospitals it ranks,” Chiu said. “U.S. News is not above the law, and its bullying litigation tactics will not deter us from standing up for patients and consumers.”
In its filing, however, U.S. News stated that it responded to Chiu’s initial letter — explaining its well-documented methodology and raising concerns about the potential infringement of its rights — and did not receive any additional communications from his office for nearly six months.
“The City Attorney’s actions pose a fundamental threat to our First Amendment rights and set a dangerous precedent for all media platforms and news organizations,” the lawsuit argues. It added that if Chiu's actions are allowed to stand, “any journalistic enterprise that provides analyses or opinions to the public—analyses or opinions that elected officials may wish to fault—may for that reason be subject to subpoena and investigation.”
A hearing in the case is scheduled for April 23.
A portion of a subpoena issued to U.S. News & World Report on Jan. 9, 2024, ordering the news outlet to answer questions concerning its hospital rankings.
",None,None,None,None,False,3:24-cv-00395,['ONGOING'],Civil,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,State,None,False,[],U.S. News & World Report,,,, 2024-01-05 17:51:11.548738+00:00,2024-03-10 20:00:52.985579+00:00,Texas attorney general subpoenas Media Matters after report on X,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/texas-attorney-general-subpoenas-media-matters-after-report-on-x/,2024-03-10 20:00:52.881935+00:00,,LegalOrder object (267),,"Subpoena/Legal Order, Chilling Statement",,,,,,2023-12-01,False,Austin,Texas (TX),30.26715,-97.74306,"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Dec. 1, 2023, demanded that Media Matters for America turn over what the media watchdog called a “sweeping array” of materials related to its reporting, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Media Matters sued on Dec. 11 to block the “civil investigative demand,” an administrative subpoena that is part of a probe launched Nov. 20 by Paxton into what his office characterized as “potential fraudulent activity” under the Texas Business Organizations Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The probe followed the Nov. 16 publication of a Media Matters report that found advertisements for major brands appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X, formerly known as Twitter. Several major companies paused their advertising on the platform shortly after the report and following a post on X by owner Elon Musk that appeared to endorse an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Paxton, a Republican, said he was “extremely troubled” by allegations that the progressive, Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit had manipulated data on X. “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,” he added.
The allegations of data manipulation were contained in a Nov. 20 lawsuit filed by X against Media Matters and senior investigative reporter Eric Hananoki in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. X’s suit alleged that the group and Hananoki, who wrote the story, manipulated the platform’s algorithms to produce feeds in which advertisers’ posts appeared next to pro-Nazi content, with the intent of harming X’s relationship with advertisers.
The suit sought unspecified damages and asked a judge to order Media Matters to remove the report from its website and social media accounts.
Media Matters President Angelo Carusone, in a statement after Musk filed the suit, said, “This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X’s critics into silence. Media Matters stands behind its reporting.”
In its suit against Paxton, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where Hananoki lives and works, Media Matters said that the Texas attorney general demanded “a sweeping array of materials from Media Matters and Hananoki, including documents and communications about their research and reporting.”
The suit called the investigation “retaliatory” and an “extraordinarily invasive intrusion into Plaintiffs’ news gathering and reporting activities [that] is plainly intended to chill those activities.”
Media Matters accused Paxton of violating the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, as well as its rights under reporters shield laws in Maryland and Washington, D.C., and asked the court to permanently block the investigation.
Carusone, in a Dec. 17 interview with MSNBC about the suit against Paxton, said, “In some respects, it was really our only path because the alternative would be to do nothing and have him continue to barrel ahead with this investigation, which he says could be both civil and criminal.”
Carusone told the Tracker in a phone interview that Paxton’s investigation added a “layer of unpredictability” in terms of “what could be exposed and what information somebody could get access to, and the process for that.” He added that the probe “leads to a culture, internally, of self-censoring.”
Paxton’s office did not reply to an emailed request for updates on the investigation.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 11, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey opened his own investigation into Media Matters. In a letter to the watchdog group, he alleged that it appeared to have used the “coordinated, inauthentic activity” described in X’s lawsuit “to solicit charitable donations from consumers,” and that his office would look into whether this violated Missouri’s consumer protection laws, “including laws that prohibit nonprofit entities from soliciting funds under false pretenses.” Bailey instructed the group to preserve all records related to the case.
Three days later, Bailey announced that he and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry had sent letters to several major companies that paused their advertising on X, including Disney, IBM and Sony, informing them of the investigation into Media Matters.
Bailey’s office told the Tracker in a Jan. 4, 2024, email that there were no further updates in the investigation.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seen at an August 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas, subpoenaed watchdog Media Matters on Dec. 1, 2023, after the group reported on X, formerly known as Twitter.
",None,None,None,None,False,8:23-cv-03363,['ONGOING'],Civil,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,other,State,None,False,[],Media Matters for America,,,, 2024-01-08 21:25:34.957682+00:00,2024-01-08 21:30:19.401428+00:00,Newsmax ordered to turn over journalists’ texts in Dominion defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/newsmax-ordered-to-turn-over-journalists-texts-in-dominion-defamation-suit/,2024-01-08 21:30:19.320166+00:00,,LegalOrder object (268),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2023-12-01,False,Wilmington,Delaware (DE),39.74595,-75.54659,"Newsmax was ordered on Dec. 1, 2023, to turn over its journalists’ personal texts and other electronic communications, as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ ongoing defamation suit against the conservative news network.
Dominion filed the $1.6 billion lawsuit in 2021, alleging that Newsmax defamed the voting machine company when the news outlet falsely claimed that Dominion had rigged the 2020 presidential election.
According to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, one of Dominion’s early discovery requests was for all documents and communications concerning mentions of the company on Newsmax since November 2018. Newsmax objected to the request, stating in part that it would violate multiple states’ constitutional free speech protections and reporter’s privilege laws.
In August 2023, Dominion filed a motion to compel Newsmax to review and turn over texts and other non-email communications of current employees, including those on the employees’ personal devices.
“This is not a case where a bright line separates business-related and personal documents,” Dominion argued. “One of the central issues is whether any of Newsmax’s media professionals expressed, behind the scenes, disbelief about the election-related lies the network was airing publicly.”
Newsmax objected to the request, arguing in court filings that it had already searched records and communications that were “in furtherance of Newsmax business,” as ordered by a special master in the parallel Smartmatic litigation. It added that it was only able to do so because employees had cooperated voluntarily once they were assured that their private data would not be collected, reviewed or produced.
The news network added that it has no custody or control over its employees’ personal devices, and lacks the “legal right or practical ability to demand employees turn over such devices.”
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis overruled Newsmax’s arguments on Dec. 1, ordering the news network to produce the private communications.
In a statement emailed to the Tracker, Newsmax said it is examining its options in light of the judge’s ruling.
“Newsmax remains deeply concerned about the chilling effect that this litigation is having and will continue to have on the freedom of the press and how it covers largely live news events and controversies,” the statement said.
A portion of the order issued Dec. 1, 2023, ordering Newsmax to produce its journalists’ personal texts and other electronic communications as part of Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the company.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,other,State,None,False,[],Newsmax Media,"election, Election 2020",,, 2023-12-21 16:14:03.699999+00:00,2023-12-21 16:14:03.699999+00:00,Illinois watchdog blog subpoenaed in defamation case; subpoena later withdrawn,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/illinois-watchdog-blog-subpoenaed-in-defamation-case-subpoena-later-withdrawn/,2023-12-21 16:14:03.612171+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (263), LegalOrder object (264)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2023-11-28,False,Belleville,Illinois (IL),38.52005,-89.98399,"Illinois-based blog Edgar County Watchdogs was subpoenaed on Nov. 28, 2023, for testimony and communications about the parties to a civil defamation case, but the subpoena was subsequently withdrawn on Dec. 20.
The subpoena had been filed with the 20th Circuit Court in St. Clair County by Gerard Scott Jr., the plaintiff in the defamation case. It ordered a representative from the Edgar County Watchdogs, which is based in St. Clair County outside St. Louis, to testify on Jan. 3, 2024, and to bring all written correspondence related to the suit to the hearing.
Edgar County Watchdogs reported that Scott, a Village of Caseyville employee and St. Clair County board member, filed the suit against researcher and blogger Bradley VanHoose.
VanHoose had sought information about an invoice paid by the village for an automobile repair via Freedom of Information Act requests and by asking questions of local officials. VanHoose later informed Edgar County Watchdogs that he believed an employee of the village had used taxpayer funds for repairs on a privately owned vehicle, according to the blog.
Edgar County Watchdogs co-founder and reporter John Kraft initially told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that it would seek to quash the subpoena under the Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act, which protects reporters’ sources from compelled disclosure.
Before that motion could be filed, the two parties agreed that the subpoena would be withdrawn, Kraft and the plaintiff’s attorney, Douglas Stewart, told the Tracker. Stewart, in an email to Kraft, wrote, “I believe that the information that I seek is readily available from others.”
The subpoena was withdrawn during a Dec. 20 hearing, the blog reported.
The Tracker has documented multiple other subpoenas against Edgar County Watchdogs, most recently in 2020.
A portion of the subpoena demanding Edgar County Watchdogs’ communications and testimony related to a civil defamation case.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,State,None,False,[],Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2024-01-05 17:53:06.176220+00:00,2024-02-08 22:11:02.207674+00:00,Reporter subpoenaed for testimony in Title IX lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-subpoenaed-for-testimony-in-title-ix-lawsuit/,2024-02-08 22:11:02.023953+00:00,,LegalOrder object (266),(2024-02-01 00:00:00+00:00) Subpoena for California reporter’s testimony quashed,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby (USA Today),,2023-11-22,False,Sacramento,California (CA),38.58157,-121.4944,"California-based USA Today reporter Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby was subpoenaed on Nov. 22, 2023, to testify in connection with an ongoing lawsuit against multiple Louisiana universities. Jacoby was served a separate subpoena in October for documents and source communications, which was quashed in December.
In a May 2021 article, Jacoby reported that various Louisiana schools and police forces failed to share relevant information with each other after multiple women reported the same college student for sexual misconduct.
One of the women cited in Jacoby’s reporting filed a lawsuit against two university systems and a local government in May 2022, alleging negligence and violations of her rights under Title IX. According to the complaint, the woman — identified only as Jane Doe to protect her identity — learned from Jacoby’s article that the universities had been aware of her assailant’s history of sexual misconduct before the attack against her.
The board of supervisors of the University of Louisiana System initially issued Jacoby a sweeping document subpoena, which listed 28 requests for his communications, reporting materials and unpublished work product around the article. It was subsequently limited to just his texts with Doe and notes from their conversations, as well as an affidavit authenticating and contextualizing them.
The university system argued that the communications would prove that Doe had learned the material facts underlying her allegations earlier than she claimed and had missed the statute of limitations to file the lawsuit.
Though that subpoena was ultimately quashed on Dec. 21, the university system issued a second subpoena on Nov. 22 for Jacoby to testify concerning his communications with Doe (the subpoena was reissued just over a week later changing the time of the deposition).
Jacoby filed a request for a protective order on Dec. 6 requesting that the court ensure he is not compelled to testify. When contacted by the Tracker, Jacoby declined to comment further until the matter is resolved.
A portion of the subpoena issued to USA Today reporter Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby on Nov. 22, 2023, ordering him to testify in connection with a negligence lawsuit against the University of Louisiana System.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2024-01-05 17:54:29.647594+00:00,2024-01-05 17:54:29.647594+00:00,Subpoena quashed for reporter’s communications as part of Title IX lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-quashed-for-reporters-communications-as-part-of-title-ix-lawsuit/,2024-01-04 19:58:11.577125+00:00,,LegalOrder object (265),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby (USA Today),,2023-10-31,False,Sacramento,California (CA),38.58157,-121.4944,"California-based USA Today reporter Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby was subpoenaed for source communications and other documents on Oct. 31, 2023, as part of a separate, ongoing lawsuit against multiple Louisiana universities. The subpoena was ultimately quashed on Dec. 21.
In a May 2021 article, Jacoby reported that various Louisiana schools and police forces failed to share relevant information with each other after multiple women reported the same college student for sexual misconduct.
One of the women cited in Jacoby’s reporting filed a lawsuit against two university systems and a local government in May 2022, alleging negligence and violations of her rights under Title IX. According to the complaint, the woman — identified only as Jane Doe to protect her identity — learned from Jacoby’s article that the universities had been aware of her assailant’s history of sexual misconduct before the attack against her.
The board of supervisors of the University of Louisiana System initially issued Jacoby a sweeping subpoena, which listed 28 requests for his communications, reporting materials and unpublished work product around the article.
After Jacoby filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Nov. 13, the university system agreed to limit the request to just his texts with Doe and notes from their conversations, as well as an affidavit authenticating and contextualizing them. The university system argued that the communications would prove that Doe had learned the material facts underlying her allegations earlier than she claimed and had missed the statute of limitations to file the lawsuit.
Jacoby provided an affidavit confirming that, as records already turned over by Doe had shown, his first contact with her was in December 2020. According to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, the universities felt the affidavit was insufficient, while Jacoby maintained his objections to even the narrowed subpoena.
“As a journalist, I have ethical obligations to my sources. It is an essential aspect of my job to build trust with sources, even more so for highly sensitive subject matter like sexual assault,” Jacoby wrote in his affidavit. “I would not be able to do my job as an investigative reporter if sources did not believe that I would honor my confidentiality agreements. To me, this is both a legal matter and a matter of principle.”
A U.S. District Court judge granted Jacoby’s motion to quash the subpoena on Dec. 21, finding that the university system had failed to meet the necessary standards to justify impinging on journalistic protections.
“It is not enough that [the University of Louisiana System] hopes or even has a hunch that Jacoby’s documents will contradict Doe’s testimony and the other available evidence,” Magistrate Judge Allison Claire wrote in her decision.
When contacted by the Tracker, Jacoby declined to comment further because a second subpoena against him in the case is still pending.
A portion of the subpoena issued to USA Today reporter Kenneth “Kenny” Jacoby on Oct. 31, 2023, ordering him to produce source communications, documents and unpublished work product in connection with a lawsuit against the University of Louisiana System.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2023-11-06 21:24:41.674421+00:00,2023-11-06 21:24:41.674421+00:00,New England newspaper subpoenaed over defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-england-newspaper-subpoenaed-over-defamation-suit/,2023-11-06 21:24:41.576793+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (257), LegalOrder object (258)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2023-09-25,False,Concord,New Hampshire (NH),43.20814,-71.53757,"A family-owned New England newspaper and its New Hampshire reporter Robert Blechl were subpoenaed on Sept. 25, 2023, over Blechl’s coverage of a civil suit involving a local activist and an interstate waste management company, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
The subpoenas, served to Blechl and the Caledonian Record, a daily covering northeastern Vermont and northern New Hampshire, were withdrawn on Oct. 6, the attorney representing them, Gregory Sullivan, told the Tracker.
According to an account by New Hampshire Public Radio, lawyers for Casella Waste Systems Inc. claimed that a May 18 article by Blechl misrepresented the settlement of its defamation suit against Jon Swan, who had been fighting a proposed landfill in New Hampshire. A review of court documents indicates the firm was seeking testimony and all of Blechl’s notes and communications with Swan related to the litigation and his May 18 report.
In a Sept. 29 affidavit describing his newsgathering, however, Blechl said that Swan had refused to speak to him about the litigation, so he had relied strictly on public records.
Sullivan told the Tracker that in his Sept. 29 motion to quash the subpoenas, he argued that New Hampshire law protects the news media from having to share sources and that neither Blechl nor the Record possessed any of the information that Casella was seeking.
“It is well-settled law that requiring reporters and publishers to respond to subpoenas and to appear for depositions has a chilling effect on the news gathering and publishing processes,” Sullivan wrote in his motion. “When, as in this case, no valid basis for the subpoenas exists, the First Amendment and … the New Hampshire Constitution mandate the quashing of the issued subpoenas.”
According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, while New Hampshire does not have a shield law, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has recognized a qualified constitutional privilege to protect the identity of confidential news sources.
Although the subpoenas were dropped after they were issued, Sullivan said the fact that they were instigated in the first place creates a chilling effect on the media.
“Anytime a news media organization, or one of its reporters, is subpoenaed, and it's not a necessary subpoena, it is an unfortunate situation, certainly for the paper,” he told the Tracker. “It's a significant amount of money for a small newspaper to incur based upon what we felt were frivolous attempts to get information.”
Screenshot of the subpoena served on the Caledonian Record on Sept. 25, 2023.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,State,None,False,None,Caledonian Record,,,, 2023-11-06 21:32:54.456250+00:00,2023-11-06 21:32:54.456250+00:00,New Hampshire reporter subpoenaed over defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-hampshire-reporter-subpoenaed-over-defamation-suit/,2023-11-06 21:32:54.373378+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (259), LegalOrder object (260)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Robert Blechl (Caledonian Record),,2023-09-25,False,Concord,New Hampshire (NH),43.20814,-71.53757,"New Hampshire reporter Robert Blechl and a family-owned New England newspaper he works for were subpoenaed on Sept. 25, 2023, over Blechl’s coverage of a civil suit involving a local activist and an interstate waste management company, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
The subpoenas, served to Blechl and the Caledonian Record, a daily covering northeastern Vermont and northern New Hampshire, were withdrawn on Oct. 6, the attorney representing them, Gregory Sullivan, told the Tracker.
According to an account by New Hampshire Public Radio, lawyers for Casella Waste Systems Inc. claimed that a May 18 article by Blechl misrepresented the settlement of its defamation suit against Jon Swan, who had been fighting a proposed landfill in New Hampshire. A review of court documents indicates the firm was seeking testimony and all of Blechl’s notes and communications with Swan related to the litigation and his May 18 report.
In a Sept. 29 affidavit describing his newsgathering, however, Blechl said that Swan had refused to speak to him about the litigation, so Blechl had relied strictly on public records.
Sullivan told the Tracker that in his Sept. 29 motion to quash the subpoenas, he argued that New Hampshire law protects the news media from having to share sources and that neither Blechl nor the Record possessed any of the information that Casella was seeking.
“It is well-settled law that requiring reporters and publishers to respond to subpoenas and to appear for depositions has a chilling effect on the news gathering and publishing processes,” Sullivan wrote in his motion. “When, as in this case, no valid basis for the subpoenas exists, the First Amendment and … the New Hampshire Constitution mandate the quashing of the issued subpoenas.”
According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, while New Hampshire does not have a shield law, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has recognized a qualified constitutional privilege to protect the identity of confidential news sources.
Although the subpoenas were dropped after they were issued, Sullivan said the fact that they were instigated in the first place creates a chilling effect on the media.
“Anytime a news media organization, or one of its reporters, is subpoenaed, and it’s not a necessary subpoena, it is an unfortunate situation, certainly for the paper,” he told the Tracker. “It's a significant amount of money for a small newspaper to incur based upon what we felt were frivolous attempts to get information.”
Screenshot of the subpoena served on Caledonian Record reporter Robert Blechl on Sept. 25, 2023.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-10-24 18:29:45.173635+00:00,2023-12-05 16:46:20.253039+00:00,Judge orders journalist to turn over source communications,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/judge-orders-journalist-to-turn-over-source-communications/,2023-12-05 16:02:54.899567+00:00,,LegalOrder object (249),(2023-12-01 00:00:00+00:00) Journalist settles NewsGuild suit; No longer required to turn over source communications,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Mike Elk (Payday Report),,2023-09-14,False,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania (PA),40.44062,-79.99589,"A Pennsylvania judge granted a motion on Sept. 14, 2023, to compel journalist Mike Elk to disclose his correspondence with former sources, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
The motion by the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America and union officials Jon Schleuss, Fatima Hussein and Steve Cook was made as part of Elk’s defamation suit against the NewsGuild, the Pittsburgh NewsGuild and four individual defendants.
Elk subsequently objected to the NewsGuild’s requests on Oct. 16, so a ruling by the judge now awaits, Poynter reported.
Elk, senior labor reporter and founder of the news site Payday Report, had sued the NewsGuild, the country’s largest journalists’ union, and other defendants in June 2021. He made claims against the NewsGuild for defamation, breach of contract, fraud and assault, alleging that the union mishandled its response to his investigation into sexual harassment allegations against then-president of the Pittsburgh NewsGuild Michael Fuoco. The NewsGuild and other defendants have denied Elk’s claims.
In September 2022, the NewsGuild sought information on Elk’s investigation methods, as well as for the names of and his communications with the sources who told him about the harassment allegations.
Elk was also asked to identify “every individual associated with the New York Times that you have communicated with regarding the lawsuit and the allegations” within his complaint (former New York Times columnist Ben Smith wrote about Elk’s investigation in December 2020).
After Elk refused to comply, the NewsGuild filed a motion to compel discovery responses from him, which the judge granted.
Elk argues in his responses to the NewsGuild that these communications are protected by the First Amendment and Pennsylvania Shield Law.
In an emailed response to the Tracker’s request for comment, Schleuss, president of the NewsGuild, said: “We have no inherent interest in obtaining Elk’s communications regarding the New York Times reporting, other than to defend against Elk’s baseless legal claims. We have not sought, and will not seek any discovery from the New York Times or from any of its current or former reporters.”
Elk told the Tracker he is scheduled to be deposed by the NewsGuild on Nov. 13.
ProPublica and five of its journalists were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as former reporter Mick Dumke; senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger; senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen; reporter Paul Kiel; and reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, seen here speaking at a conference in 2022, subpoenaed ProPublica and five of its journalists on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,ProPublica,,,, 2023-09-29 17:08:21.320043+00:00,2023-09-29 17:08:21.320043+00:00,ProPublica journalist subpoenaed over IRS lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/propublica-journalist-subpoenaed-over-irs-lawsuit/,2023-09-29 17:08:21.128535+00:00,,LegalOrder object (244),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Ash Ngu (ProPublica),,2023-08-22,False,Miami,Florida (FL),25.77427,-80.19366,"ProPublica and five of its journalists — including reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu — were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as Ngu, former reporter Mick Dumke; senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger; senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen; and reporter Paul Kiel. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
ProPublica and five of its journalists — including senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen — were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as Ernsthausen; former reporter Mick Dumke; senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger; reporter Paul Kiel; and reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
ProPublica and five of its journalists — including senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger — were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as Eisinger, former reporter Mick Dumke; senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen; reporter Paul Kiel; and reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
ProPublica and five of its journalists — including former reporter Mick Dumke — were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as Dumke, who left the outlet in December 2022; senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger; senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen; reporter Paul Kiel; and reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
ProPublica and five of its journalists — including reporter Paul Kiel — were each subpoenaed on Aug. 22, 2023, in connection with an ongoing lawsuit filed by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin against the Internal Revenue Service, the nonprofit newsroom confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Griffin filed the suit in federal court in Miami in December 2022, alleging that the IRS failed to establish “appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards” to protect his private data.
A ProPublica spokesperson told the Tracker via email that the outlet and journalists received “sprawling subpoenas for documents” in an apparent attempt to identify ProPublica’s source following the publication of its series, “The Secret IRS Files,” which relied on what it called “a vast cache” of tax documents.
“As we reported from the first day the series appeared, we don’t know the identity of the source who provided this trove of information on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are deeply committed to protecting our sources — who are the lifeblood of our journalism — and maintaining the independence of our newsroom. These principles are sacrosanct at ProPublica and will remain our priority as we address Griffin’s subpoenas. If necessary, we are prepared to defend our rights in court.”
ProPublica declined to provide further information about the content of the subpoenas or how the outlet is responding to them.
A joint status report filed in the underlying lawsuit identified the journalists subpoenaed as Kiel; former reporter Mick Dumke; senior editor and reporter Jesse Eisinger; senior data reporter Jeff Ernsthausen; and reporter, designer and developer Ash Ngu. According to the report, responses to the subpoenas were due on Sept. 26 and the deadline to begin production of materials is Oct. 6.
Local law enforcement executed a search warrant on the offices of the Marion County Record on Aug. 11, 2023, seizing computers, cellphones, a file server and journalistic work product. The Kansas newspaper reported that the seizures jeopardized its ability to publish its weekly edition.
A copy of the search warrant, obtained by the Kansas Reflector, shows that the search was undertaken as part of an investigation into alleged unlawful use of a computer and identity theft.
According to the Record, however, when one of the paper’s reporters requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit that summarizes the circumstances and evidence supporting the warrant, the district court issued a signed statement that there wasn’t one on file.
The Record reported that during an Aug. 7 city council meeting a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell, had accused the newspaper of illegally obtaining information that she had a prior DUI conviction and had driven without a license, as well as supplying the information to Marion Vice Mayor Ruth Herbel.
In an article responding to the allegations, Record Publisher and Editor Eric Meyer said that a source had reached out with the information via Facebook, and had independently sent it to Herbel as well. The Record had verified the allegations through a public website but decided not to publish it, instead alerting the Marion Police Department that the source may have obtained the information illegally.
The morning of Aug. 11, Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar signed the search warrant for the Record’s office. Marion Police Department officers and Marion County sheriff’s deputies executed it within two hours, ordering staff to leave the office as equipment was seized.
Officers also arrived simultaneously with a second warrant at Meyer’s home — where he lives with his 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, a co-owner and correspondent for the Record, the Reflector reported. Joan Meyer passed away the following day, which the Record attributed in part to the stress of the raid.
Eric Meyer told the Reflector that officers seized “everything” from the newsroom, and that he wasn’t sure how the staff would complete the edition before it needed to go to press on Aug. 15. According to court documents obtained by KSHB, officers seized four computers, a backup hard drive and reporting materials as part of the warrant.
Officers also seized two personal cellphones belonging to reporters Deb Gruver and Phyllis Zorn, which were not listed on the warrant. Gruver alleged on Facebook that Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody injured her finger when he “forcibly yanked” the phone from her hand.
Eric Meyer, a veteran reporter from the Milwaukee Journal and former journalism professor at the University of Illinois, told The Kansas City Star following the raid that the Record had also been investigating Cody’s background and allegations of wrongdoing.
Cody, who did not immediately respond to a request for further information, told the Star that the lack of an article about the allegations shows they had no basis. “If it was true, they would’ve printed it,” Cody said.
On Aug. 14, a coalition of more than 30 press freedom organizations sent a letter to Cody condemning the raid and calling for the return of the newspaper’s equipment and reporting materials.
Freedom of the Press Foundation, which operates the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, called the raid “alarming.”
“Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency,” said Director of Advocacy Seth Stern. “Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.”
In a statement released on Facebook, Cody defended the legality of the raid and said that the Marion Police Department had received assistance from local and state investigators.
“It is true that in most cases, [the federal Privacy Protection Act] requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists unless they themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search,” Cody wrote.
Eric Meyer, who could not immediately be reached for comment, told the Record that while the paper’s attorneys are working to have the equipment returned, they also plan to file a federal lawsuit to ensure that such a raid never happens again.
“Our first priority is to be able to publish next week,” he said, “but we also want to make sure no other news organization is ever exposed to the Gestapo tactics we witnessed today. We will be seeking the maximum sanctions possible under law.”
This article was updated to reflect reporting from KSHB around the type of equipment seized.
Editor’s Note: The incident and its metadata have been updated to reflect that the equipment belonging to the Marion County Record was seized as part of a warrant, but the equipment belonging to reporters Deb Gruver and Phyllis Zorn was taken by law enforcement without any legal order permitting the seizure. Gruver’s cellphone seizure and the assault she experienced during the raid are documented here. The seizure of Zorn’s cellphone is now documented here.
Kansas law enforcement officers raided the Marion County Record office Aug. 11, 2023, with a search warrant that free press attorneys and advocates say violated federal law.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in full,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,warrant,State,None,False,[],Marion County Record,,,, 2023-08-14 20:07:39.176170+00:00,2024-03-10 23:05:21.642548+00:00,Kansas newspaper editor’s home raided by local law enforcement,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/kansas-newspaper-editors-home-raided-by-local-law-enforcement/,2024-03-10 23:05:21.507047+00:00,,LegalOrder object (237),"(2023-10-02 15:15:00+00:00) Police chief in Kansas raid resigns; paper reports on new bodycam footage, (2023-08-16 15:52:00+00:00) Kansas county attorney withdraws search warrant, returns seized equipment, (2023-08-30 14:44:00+00:00) Police turn over photos taken during raid on Marion County publishers’ home","Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,"cellphone: count of 1, computer: count of 3, storage device: count of 1, work product: count of 1",,"Eric Meyer (Marion County Record), Joan Meyer (Marion County Record)",,2023-08-11,False,Marion,Kansas (KS),38.34835,-97.01725,"Local law enforcement executed a search warrant on the home of the owners and editor/publisher of the Marion County Record on Aug. 11, 2023. A simultaneous raid on the Kansas newspaper’s offices and equipment seizure jeopardized its ability to publish its upcoming weekly edition.
A copy of one of the search warrants, obtained by the Kansas Reflector, shows that the searches were undertaken as part of an investigation into alleged unlawful use of a computer and identity theft.
According to the Record, however, when one of the paper’s reporters requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit that summarizes the circumstances and evidence supporting the warrant, the district court issued a signed statement that there wasn’t one on file.ile.
The Record reported that during an Aug. 7 city council meeting a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell, had accused the newspaper of illegally obtaining information that she had a prior DUI conviction and had driven without a license, as well as supplying the information to Marion Vice Mayor Ruth Herbel.
In an article responding to the allegations, Editor and Publisher Eric Meyer said that a source had reached out with the information via Facebook, and had independently sent it to Herbel as well. The Record had verified the allegations through a public website but decided not to publish it, instead alerting the Marion Police Department that the source may have obtained the information illegally.
The morning of Aug. 11, Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar signed search warrants for the newsroom and Meyer’s home — where he lives with his 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, a co-owner and correspondent for the Record. According to the Reflector, Marion Police Department officers and Marion County sheriff’s deputies executed the warrants within hours.
Joan Meyer passed away the following day, which the Record attributed in part to the stress of the raid. According to court documents obtained by KSHB, officers seized three computers, including a router, Eric Meyer’s cellphone, a storage device and reporting materials.
Meyer, a veteran reporter from the Milwaukee Journal and former journalism professor at the University of Illinois, told The Kansas City Star following the raid that the Record had also been investigating Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody’s background and allegations of wrongdoing.
Cody, who did not immediately respond to a request for further information, told the Star that the lack of an article about the allegations shows they had no basis. “If it was true, they would’ve printed it,” Cody said.
On Aug. 14, a coalition of more than 30 press freedom organizations sent a letter to Cody condemning the raids and calling for the return of the newspaper’s equipment and reporting materials.
Freedom of the Press Foundation, which operates the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, called the raid “alarming.”
“Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency,” said Director of Advocacy Seth Stern. “Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.”
In a statement released on Facebook, Cody defended the legality of the raid and said that the Marion Police Department had received assistance from local and state investigators.
“It is true that in most cases, [the federal Privacy Protection Act] requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists unless they themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search,” Cody wrote.
Meyer, who could not immediately be reached for comment, told the Record that while the paper’s attorneys are working to have the equipment returned, they also plan to file a federal lawsuit to ensure that such a raid never happens again.
“Our first priority is to be able to publish next week,” Meyer said, “but we also want to make sure no other news organization is ever exposed to the Gestapo tactics we witnessed today. We will be seeking the maximum sanctions possible under law.”
This article was updated to reflect reporting from KSHB around the type of equipment seized.
Kansas law enforcement officers execute a search warrant on the home of Marion County Record co-owners Joan Meyer, second from left, and Eric Meyer, not pictured, on Aug. 11, 2023.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in full,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2023-08-03 16:24:26.676439+00:00,2023-08-31 16:41:35.990864+00:00,Journalist called to testify before grand jury on Trump election interference,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-called-to-testify-before-grand-jury-on-trump-election-interference/,2023-08-31 16:41:35.754398+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (232), LegalOrder object (233)",(2023-08-31 13:08:00+00:00) Journalist testimony not needed by grand jury hearing Trump election interference case,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,George Chidi (Freelance),,2023-07-31,False,Atlanta,Georgia (GA),33.749,-84.38798,"Freelance journalist George Chidi was subpoenaed for the second time on July 31, 2023, to testify before a grand jury in Atlanta, Georgia. Chidi told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that it is connected to alleged 2020 election interference, though the subpoenas do not specify what Chidi would be questioned about.
In December 2020, Chidi was covering the meeting of electors casting their official votes for President-elect Joe Biden at the Georgia State Capitol Building in Atlanta when he observed a Republican elector entering a side room. Chidi wrote in his newsletter, The Atlanta Objective, that when he began filming and asked what was going on in the room, he was quickly ushered out.
Chidi was immediately suspicious and believed Republican electors were working to submit fabricated election results certifying the state’s electoral college votes for Trump, despite Biden’s victory in Georgia.
The journalist was subpoenaed to testify before a special grand jury in July 2022, which he unsuccessfully fought in court. Chidi was able to limit the scope of the questions to election interference and what he witnessed at the Capitol.
A little over a year later, Chidi wrote in The Intercept that he met with an investigator from the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, who handed him two subpoenas. Chidi told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he was ordered to be “on call” to testify between Aug. 7 and Aug. 31 before both of the recently empaneled grand juries, and that he will receive notice at least 48 hours before he is expected to appear.
Chidi said that he is not certain whether he will be asked to testify before one of the juries, both or neither.
The journalist told the Tracker that he has received some assurances in writing that the scope of questioning will again be limited to exclude any unrelated reporting and so expects to testify again. Were the circumstances different, he added that he would fight the subpoena.
“No district attorney anywhere in the United States should be making a habit of issuing subpoenas to journalists,” Chidi said. “This erodes the independence of a free press. And were it for anything less substantial than democracy and the principles of the United States, I would resist with complete vigor.”
A portion of a July 31, 2023, subpoena ordering independent journalist George Chidi to be “on call” to testify before two grand juries potentially hearing cases alleging 2020 election interference by then-President Donald Trump and his allies.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,"election, Election 2020",,, 2023-08-07 13:09:41.974599+00:00,2023-08-07 13:09:41.974599+00:00,Fox News subpoenaed by Trump attorneys for interview footage in Jan. 6 lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/fox-news-subpoenaed-by-trump-attorneys-for-interview-footage-in-jan-6-lawsuit/,2023-08-03 19:54:36.667010+00:00,,LegalOrder object (234),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2023-07-01,True,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"Fox News Network was subpoenaed by former President Donald Trump’s legal team in July 2023 for recordings and notes after ex-network host Tucker Carlson referenced an unaired interview he conducted with former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund.
Trump is facing a lawsuit filed by seven Capitol Police officers who were injured during the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol. On March 16, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Trump’s request to reconsider his motion to dismiss the suit, as well as several others. Discovery in the case is now underway.
Puck reported that Carlson spoke about his interview with Sund during a July 7 podcast with Russell Brand. According to Carlson, Sund claimed the Jan. 6 crowd was rife with federal agents.
Trump now seeks a copy of the recording and any related notes, according to Mediaite.
After receiving the subpoena, Fox News wrote Trump’s legal team arguing that the materials are protected under reporter’s privilege and suggested that they could obtain the information by deposing Sund himself, according to Puck. Mediaite also reported that Sund recently published a book about the riots.
Fox News did not respond to a request for comment as of publication.
Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed on June 30, 2023, as part of a lawsuit around a major boxing match he covered in 2015 while a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
It was one of five subpoenas Pugmire received in a plaintiff’s long-running lawsuit around finder’s fees for a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The match broke pay-per-view records at more than $400 million in sales, as Pugmire himself reported for the Times.
The plaintiff in the suit claims that Showtime, which televised the fight, as well as Pacquiao and his trainer, Frederick Roach, promised him a finder’s fee for helping to negotiate the fight. The plaintiff first subpoenaed Pugmire for testimony in 2018 to have him confirm that quotations from Roach in Pugmire’s articles about the fight were accurately attributed. That subpoena was quashed on procedural grounds.
The plaintiff, Showtime, Pacquiao and his trainer each subpoenaed the journalist for his testimony in June 2023 after a Showtime executive referenced a conversation with Pugmire in another deposition. The plaintiff also demanded that Pugmire produce correspondence with Showtime, the executive who had been deposed, and other executives involved in planning the fight.
On July 11, Pugmire objected to all of the subpoenas and refused to testify. The plaintiff then filed a motion to compel Pugmire’s cooperation with his subpoena. Defendants Showtime and Paramount Global, its parent company, also filed a motion to compel, claiming that Pugmire’s testimony would reveal “witness tampering” by the plaintiff.
In their opposition to the motions, Pugmire’s attorneys argued that California Shield Law and the reporter’s privilege wholly protect Pugmire. “The free flow of information to the public is jeopardized when litigants attempt to use the coercive power of the Court to turn journalists into witnesses and commandeer independent newsgathering efforts for parties’ private aims,” they wrote.
On Sept. 11, the court denied the motions to compel, agreeing that forcing Pugmire to comply would violate the state’s shield law and reporter’s privilege.
Pugmire’s attorney Karl Olson told the Tracker in October 2023 the parties should have been more respectful of the importance of the shield law. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Pugmire and the Times were dragged into this not once, but twice,” he said.
Boxers Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao meet ahead of their 2015 match. Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed five times as part of a lawsuit involving the match and his coverage of it while at the Los Angeles Times.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-11-02 18:12:15.428189+00:00,2023-11-02 18:39:46.686028+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed by Showtime in boxing lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-by-showtime-in-boxing-lawsuit/,2023-11-02 18:39:46.595156+00:00,,LegalOrder object (251),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Lance Pugmire (Freelance),,2023-06-22,False,Los Angeles,California (CA),34.05223,-118.24368,"Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed on June 22, 2023, as part of a lawsuit around a major boxing match he covered in 2015 while a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
It was one of five subpoenas Pugmire received in a plaintiff’s long-running lawsuit around finder’s fees for a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The match broke pay-per-view records at more than $400 million in sales, as Pugmire himself reported for the Times.
The plaintiff in the suit claims that Showtime, which televised the fight, as well as Pacquiao and his trainer, Frederick Roach, promised him a finder’s fee for helping to negotiate the fight. The plaintiff first subpoenaed Pugmire for testimony in 2018 to have him confirm that quotations from Roach in Pugmire’s articles about the fight were accurately attributed. That subpoena was quashed on procedural grounds.
The plaintiff, Showtime, Pacquiao and his trainer each subpoenaed the journalist for his testimony in June 2023, after a Showtime executive referenced a conversation with Pugmire in another deposition. On July 11, Pugmire objected to all of the subpoenas and refused to testify.
Showtime and Paramount Global, its parent company, then filed a motion to compel, claiming that Pugmire’s testimony would reveal “witness tampering” by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his own motion to compel Pugmire’s cooperation with his subpoena.
In their opposition to the motions, Pugmire’s attorneys argued that California Shield Law and the reporter’s privilege wholly protect Pugmire. “The free flow of information to the public is jeopardized when litigants attempt to use the coercive power of the Court to turn journalists into witnesses and commandeer independent newsgathering efforts for parties’ private aims,” they wrote.
On Sept. 11, the court denied the motions to compel, agreeing that forcing Pugmire to comply would violate the state’s shield law and reporter’s privilege.
Pugmire’s attorney Karl Olson told the Tracker in October 2023 the parties should have been more respectful of the importance of the shield law. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Pugmire and the Times were dragged into this not once, but twice,” he said.
Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed on June 22, 2023, as part of a lawsuit around a major boxing match he covered in 2015 while a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
It was one of five subpoenas Pugmire received in a plaintiff’s long-running lawsuit around finder’s fees for a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The match broke pay-per-view records at more than $400 million in sales, as Pugmire himself reported for the Times.
The plaintiff in the suit claims that Showtime, which televised the fight, as well as Pacquiao and his trainer, Frederick Roach, promised him a finder’s fee for helping to negotiate the fight. The plaintiff first subpoenaed Pugmire for testimony in 2018 to have him confirm that quotations from Roach in Pugmire’s articles about the fight were accurately attributed. That subpoena was quashed on procedural grounds.
The plaintiff, Showtime, Pacquiao and his trainer each subpoenaed the journalist for his testimony in June 2023, after a Showtime executive referenced a conversation with Pugmire in another deposition. On July 11, Pugmire objected to all of the subpoenas and refused to testify.
Showtime and Paramount Global, its parent company, then filed a motion to compel, claiming that Pugmire’s testimony would reveal “witness tampering” by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his own motion to compel Pugmire’s cooperation with his subpoena.
In their opposition to the motions, Pugmire’s attorneys argued that California Shield Law and the reporter’s privilege wholly protect Pugmire. “The free flow of information to the public is jeopardized when litigants attempt to use the coercive power of the Court to turn journalists into witnesses and commandeer independent newsgathering efforts for parties’ private aims,” they wrote.
On Sept. 11, the court denied the motions to compel, agreeing that forcing Pugmire to comply would violate the state’s shield law and reporter’s privilege.
Pugmire’s attorney Karl Olson told the Tracker in October 2023 the parties should have been more respectful of the importance of the shield law. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Pugmire and the Times were dragged into this not once, but twice,” he said.
Boxer Manny Pacquiao speaks at a press event ahead of his 2015 pay-per-view match with Floyd Mayweather Jr. As a defendant in a lawsuit around finder’s fees, Pacquiao subpoenaed journalist Lance Pugmire, who covered the match for the Los Angeles Times.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-11-02 17:58:26.450840+00:00,2023-11-02 18:36:48.605698+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed for testimony by boxing trainer,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-for-testimony-by-boxing-trainer/,2023-11-02 18:36:48.517180+00:00,,LegalOrder object (253),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Lance Pugmire (Freelance),,2023-06-22,False,Los Angeles,California (CA),34.05223,-118.24368,"Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed on June 22, 2023, as part of a lawsuit around a major boxing match he covered in 2015 while a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
It was one of five subpoenas Pugmire received in a plaintiff’s long-running lawsuit around finder’s fees for a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The match broke pay-per-view records at more than $400 million in sales, as Pugmire himself reported for the Times.
The plaintiff in the suit claims that Showtime, which televised the fight, as well as Pacquiao and his trainer, Frederick Roach, promised him a finder’s fee for helping to negotiate the fight. The plaintiff first subpoenaed Pugmire for testimony in 2018 to have him confirm that quotations from Roach in Pugmire’s articles about the fight were accurately attributed. That subpoena was quashed on procedural grounds.
The plaintiff, Showtime, Pacquiao and his trainer each subpoenaed the journalist for his testimony in June 2023, after a Showtime executive referenced a conversation with Pugmire in another deposition. On July 11, Pugmire objected to all of the subpoenas and refused to testify.
Showtime and Paramount Global, its parent company, then filed a motion to compel, claiming that Pugmire’s testimony would reveal “witness tampering” by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his own motion to compel Pugmire’s cooperation with his subpoena.
In their opposition to the motions, Pugmire’s attorneys argued that California Shield Law and the reporter’s privilege wholly protect Pugmire. “The free flow of information to the public is jeopardized when litigants attempt to use the coercive power of the Court to turn journalists into witnesses and commandeer independent newsgathering efforts for parties’ private aims,” they wrote.
On Sept. 11, the court denied the motions to compel, agreeing that forcing Pugmire to comply would violate the state’s shield law and reporter’s privilege.
Pugmire’s attorney Karl Olson told the Tracker in October 2023 the parties should have been more respectful of the importance of the shield law. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Pugmire and the Times were dragged into this not once, but twice,” he said.
Boxing trainer Frederick Roach takes questions ahead of the 2015 Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight. As a defendant in a lawsuit around finder’s fees, Roach subpoenaed journalist Lance Pugmire, who covered the match for the Los Angeles Times.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-06-12 21:23:05.252027+00:00,2024-01-24 17:29:05.287959+00:00,"NHPR ordered to turn over reporter interviews, notes",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/new-hampshire-public-radio-ordered-to-turn-over-interviews-notes/,2024-01-24 17:29:05.191898+00:00,,LegalOrder object (214),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Lauren Chooljian (New Hampshire Public Radio),,2023-05-30,False,Brentwood,New Hampshire (NH),42.9787,-71.07284,"New Hampshire Public Radio Senior Reporter and Producer Lauren Chooljian was ordered on May 30, 2023, to turn over transcripts and notes in connection with a defamation lawsuit against the radio news service.
The underlying suit was filed in September 2022 by Eric Spofford, the subject of a March investigation into his alleged pattern of sexual misconduct and retaliation while CEO of a network of addiction rehabilitation centers. Chooljian was named as a defendant, along with Senior Reporter and Producer Jason Moon and News Director Dan Barrick.
The lawsuit was dismissed on April 18, NHPR reported. In his decision, Rockingham Superior Court Justice Daniel St. Hilaire wrote that Spofford had failed to provide evidence of actual malice, the legal burden that public figures must meet in order to pursue libel claims.
Then, on April 26, Spofford, seeking evidence of alleged malice ahead of refiling his complaint, asked the court to order Chooljian to turn over full recordings and notes from six interviews, including those she conducted with two anonymous sources, as well as notes about and communications with two other sources.
Attorneys for NHPR filed an opposition to the request on May 8, arguing that it would be an “extraordinary inversion of the usual order of operations.”
“NHPR’s story was based on nearly 50 sources — 4 who are named, and 2 more whom Spofford acknowledges are real,” the NHPR filing said. “Spofford has failed to allege a factual basis for concluding that NHPR’s sources lied, let alone — as would be required to establish actual malice — that NHPR either knew that its story was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.”
But St. Hilaire largely granted the discovery request on May 30, giving NHPR 40 days to provide the documents and transcripts of the interviews to the court. St. Hilaire ruled, however, that he would review the materials in private first in order to determine whether Chooljian or NHPR “displayed a reckless disregard for the truth by reporting a story they knew or suspected was false.” He also noted that the radio service would have the opportunity to appeal the release of any materials in the event that he finds they are subject to disclosure.
Chooljian did not respond to a request for comment.
The New York Times reported in June that shortly after Choolijan’s initial investigation was published, her home in Massachusetts was vandalized, as was her parents’ home and Barrick’s. Investigations into the attacks are ongoing, and Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan has said her office is looking into whether the attacks were connected to NHPR’s reporting, according to NHPR. Spofford has denied any involvement.
Editor’s Note: Read more about the vandalism and updates on the investigation in the Tracker.
A portion of the May 30, 2023, order requiring New Hampshire Public Radio to turn over reporter Lauren Chooljian’s transcripts and notes in connection with a defamation suit against the news outlet.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,other,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2023-11-09 21:53:51.810167+00:00,2023-11-09 21:53:51.810167+00:00,California reporter subpoenaed to testify at murder trial,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/california-reporter-subpoenaed-to-testify-at-murder-trial/,2023-11-09 21:16:20.158680+00:00,,LegalOrder object (261),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Ishani Desai (The Bakersfield Californian),,2023-05-24,False,Bakersfield,California (CA),35.37329,-119.01871,"Reporter Ishani Desai was subpoenaed on May 24, 2023, to testify at a murder trial in connection with her reporting for The Bakersfield Californian. The subpoena was the third seeking information from Desai’s jailhouse interview with a co-defendant in the case.
The dispute began after Desai interviewed Sebastian Parra for an article published by the Californian on Feb. 26. Parra was a key witness in the murder indictment of another inmate, Robert Pernell Roberts, but was himself subsequently indicted as a co-defendant.
The newspaper was subpoenaed twice earlier in the year seeking recordings from Desai’s interview or her questions and notes. While the first subpoena was quashed, a Kern County Superior Court judge upheld the second on May 10, giving the newspaper one week to turn over the materials. The newspaper refused and was found in contempt of court on May 24.
Desai was subpoenaed that same day to testify at Parra’s trial, then scheduled for May 31, according to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
After an appeal by the newspaper, California's Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District ruled on Nov. 7 that the lower court was incorrect in holding the Californian in contempt, but justified in ordering the newspaper to turn over Desai’s newsgathering materials.
The ruling acknowledged the subpoena for Desai’s trial testimony, but wrote that the appellate court was not judging its enforceability.
Desai did not respond to a request for comment. The Californian’s attorney, Thomas Burke, said when reached by email that he is still discussing next steps with his clients.
Meanwhile, Parra’s trial has been placed on hold pending the resolution of Desai and the Californian’s subpoenas, Courthouse News reported.
A portion of the subpoena issued to reporter Ishani Desai on May 24, 2023, ordering her to appear to testify at a murder trial concerning a jailhouse interview she conducted for The Bakersfield Californian.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2023-06-22 16:40:06.444265+00:00,2023-08-08 16:51:50.136873+00:00,"IndyStar reporter subpoenaed, testifies in high-profile abortion case",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/indystar-reporter-subpoenaed-testifies-in-high-profile-abortion-case/,2023-08-08 16:51:49.812677+00:00,,LegalOrder object (216),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Shari Rudavsky (The Indianapolis Star),,2023-05-17,False,Indianapolis,Indiana (IN),39.76838,-86.15804,"Indianapolis Star reporter Shari Rudavsky was compelled to testify on May 17, 2023, in connection with an investigation of an Indiana physician who provided a minor with an abortion in the days following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Rudavsky was reporting on a 2022 reproductive rights protest when she reportedly overheard OB-GYN Caitlin Bernard telling the story of a 10-year-old, pregnant sexual assault survivor who was seeking an abortion in Indiana days after Ohio implemented a six-week abortion ban. Bernard confirmed the story to Rudavsky, whose subsequent article drew national attention to the case.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita subsequently launched an investigation into allegations that Bernard had violated patient privacy laws and had failed to immediately alert authorities that the child had been raped. The Department of Health confirmed to the IndyStar that Bernard had reported the abuse to the state, and her employer, Indiana University Health, said in a statement that she had not violated patient privacy.
Rokita subpoenaed Rudavsky in early 2023, initially ordering her to appear for a deposition before the Indiana Medical Licensing Board on April 20, according to court filings.
Rudavsky confirmed that she was ultimately deposed on May 17, but she declined to comment further, directing inquiries to an attorney representing the newspaper.
In her deposition, Rudavsky was not only asked about her communications with Bernard but also about when she became interested in journalism, her work for a student newspaper and her role as a health and medicine reporter for the Star.
Gannett attorney Tom Curley also declined to comment when reached by email.
Protesters demonstrate at the Indiana Statehouse following the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. IndyStar reporter Shari Rudavsky was compelled to testify in May 2023 after reporting on a 10-year-old who received an abortion in the state.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,reproductive rights,,, 2023-08-07 15:28:30.434371+00:00,2024-02-27 15:47:06.293794+00:00,"FBI raids home, office of independent journalist on hacking allegations",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/fbi-raids-home-office-of-independent-journalist-on-hacking-allegations/,2024-02-27 15:47:06.146250+00:00,,LegalOrder object (235),"(2023-09-29 12:08:00+00:00) FBI returns some equipment seized from Tampa journalist, (2023-11-09 17:37:00+00:00) FBI returns additional equipment seized from Tampa journalist, (2024-02-21 17:10:00+00:00) Florida journalist indicted for alleged conspiracy, computer fraud, wiretapping","Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,"cellphone: count of 4, computer: count of 9, storage device: count of 7, work product: count of 4",,Tim Burke (Independent),,2023-05-08,False,Tampa,Florida (FL),27.94752,-82.45843,"Florida-based independent journalist Tim Burke awoke on May 8, 2023, to the sound of FBI agents banging on the door of his Tampa home with a search warrant. By the time the raid ended approximately 10 hours later, agents had seized virtually all of the electronics in his newsroom.
The Tampa Bay Times reported that the raid was connected to a criminal probe into “alleged computer intrusions and intercepted communications at the Fox News Network.” At least six behind-the-scenes clips of former Fox host Tucker Carlson were leaked over the past year. The broadcaster has asserted that it did not authorize the release of the footage and that its systems could have been hacked.
Burke, who worked previously at Deadspin and The Daily Beast, has made a career of capturing publicly available livestreams. The Times reported that he launched Burke Communications in 2019, offering contract work and consulting, as well as access to his 181,000-gigabyte video archive.
According to the search warrant for his home, which was unsealed on May 26, officers were authorized to seize all of Burke’s electronics or physical records of alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The warrant also stipulated that officers could force residents to unlock devices enabled with biometrics, including fingerprints or facial recognition.
In total, federal agents seized nine computers, seven hard drives, four cellphones and four notebooks from Burke’s home and the guesthouse that serves as his office. Two computers belonging to Lynn Hurtak, Burke’s wife and a Tampa City Council member, were also seized, along with a third that the couple both used, Burke told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in August.
Attorney Mark Rasch, who is representing Burke and created the Justice Department’s Computer Crime Unit, denied any criminal behavior by Burke.
“Hacking is not simply obtaining information that someone would rather you not,” Rasch told the Tracker. “And hacking is also not going to a website that someone would prefer that you not or finding information that they would prefer that you not.”
Rasch said that Burke uses no special software or tools to access or record live feeds, and that viewing them does not require a username or password. Rather, Burke has cultivated search skills and sources that direct him to the URLs where they are publicly visible.
Burke told the Tracker that he’s worked as an assignment editor his entire career, and sees his current work as an extension of that: sifting through content to identify newsworthy material for publication.
“I have always promoted my approach of taking video in its most raw nature as being the best we have when it comes to veracity,” Burke said. “The raw video is the truth. That’s what journalism is, that’s what we’re reporting.”
But Burke told the Tracker that the seizure of his electronics has made it impossible for him to continue his journalistic work.
“It’s very difficult for me to do most of the things that I do as a journalist without my contacts that are on my phone or without the video editing softwares that are on my computer,” Burke said. “I just want to get back to doing this thing that I’ve dedicated my life to.”
The seizures also caused Burke to be locked out of his email, social media, banking and other important accounts. According to Rasch, federal prosecutors asked that Burke waive his Fifth Amendment rights and provide the passcode to his cellphone so it could be cloned. Burke refused.
Burke told the Tracker that prosecutors later said they no longer needed the passcode, and allowed him to access the device to transfer the two-factor authentication applications he needed.
On July 21, Rasch filed a motion for the return of Burke’s devices and to unseal the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant, which he believes will provide insights into the basis on which Burke is being investigated.
Rasch also highlighted that multiple Justice Department officials — including the U.S. attorney general — are required to approve searches involving journalists or newsrooms, and details of whether investigators followed that procedure should be in the affidavit.
The government response to Rasch’s motion is due by Aug. 9, according to court records.
A portion of the search warrant federal investigators filed for the devices and records of Florida-based journalist Tim Burke. During a search of Burke’s Tampa home and office on May 8, 2023, FBI agents seized two dozen pieces of journalistic equipment.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in part,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,warrant,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2023-05-19 19:48:37.358137+00:00,2023-12-03 22:30:02.059026+00:00,Newspaper ordered to comply with subpoena for jailhouse interview notes,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/newspaper-ordered-to-comply-with-subpoena-for-jailhouse-interview-notes/,2023-12-03 22:30:01.877079+00:00,contempt of court (acquitted as of 2023-11-07),LegalOrder object (213),"(2023-11-15 14:10:00+00:00) Newspaper complies with court order, turns over jailhouse interview notes, (2023-11-07 16:16:00+00:00) Appeals court drops contempt charges, but says paper must turn over jailhouse interview notes, (2023-05-24 12:44:00+00:00) Newspaper held in contempt after refusing to turn over jailhouse interview notes","Subpoena/Legal Order, Arrest/Criminal Charge",,,,,,2023-04-04,False,Bakersfield,California (CA),35.37329,-119.01871,"A California judge has ordered The Bakersfield Californian to comply with a subpoena seeking unpublished materials from a jailhouse interview conducted by one of the newspaper’s reporters. The newspaper and its reporter, Ishani Desai, were instructed on May 10, 2023, to turn over the materials by May 17, but they have refused and now face possible contempt charges.
The dispute began after Desai conducted a jailhouse interview in February with Sebastian Parra. Parra was a key witness in the murder indictment of another inmate, Robert Pernell Roberts, but was subsequently indicted as a co-defendant.
The Californian published Desai's article about Parra on Feb. 26. On March 3, the public defender representing Roberts, Alexandria Blythe, subpoenaed the newspaper seeking any audio or video recordings of the interview or, if no recording exists, a copy of Desai’s notes and interview questions. The Tracker has documented that subpoena here.
While the first subpoena was quashed on April 4, a nearly identical subpoena was issued the same day and served to The Californian on April 10.
An attorney representing the newspaper, Thomas Burke, filed a motion to quash the second subpoena on April 25, according to court filings reviewed by the Tracker.
“In a civil case, the protections for these materials would be absolute; but even criminal defendants like Roberts are not entitled to subject newsgatherers to compelled discovery unless strict conditions are met,” Burke wrote. “Defendant Roberts still cannot begin to satisfy those conditions — he’s simply trying for a second time.”
During a hearing on May 10, Blythe argued that because Parra’s statements to The Californian differed from his sworn testimony it was possible he made other claims that would support Roberts’ defense, according to a transcript reviewed by the Tracker.
Kern County Superior Court Judge Elizabet Rodriguez sided with Blythe, ruling that unlike with the first subpoena, Blythe had successfully shown that the documents would assist in Roberts’ defense.
“Clearly Ms. Blythe does not know what’s in the reporter’s notes since they have not been disclosed,” Rodriguez said, according to the hearing transcript. “There is no requirement that she in fact prove that the notes will be helpful. The requirement is just to make a showing that the information will materially assist his defense.”
Rodriguez ordered the newspaper and Desai to turn over the interview questions and notes by 5 p.m. local time on May 17. According to the transcript, Blythe also intends to call Desai as a witness at the trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 24.
Burke told the Tracker that one of the most alarming aspects was how the judge's decision might encourage similar demands for reporters' notes in future.
“She announced it in a courtroom where I counted at least five prominent criminal defense attorneys who were really listening, as she said how frankly easy it is for a criminal defendant to get notes from a reporter who interviews them,” Burke said. “That’s not a good development. Absent a reversal by the Court of Appeals, that’s like a blueprint for every criminal defendant that the newspaper interviews.”
The Californian filed an emergency appeal on May 15 requesting a stay of the order compelling Desai to turn over her notes. The Court of Appeals determined that the request was premature, and that a newsperson must be held in contempt before the appellate court can intercede.
Burke confirmed to the Tracker that The Californian would not turn over the materials, and Desai said she and the newspaper plan to continue fighting the order.
“We are doing this because we don’t believe that my notes, my unpublished materials, should be seized by any government agency in order for them to use them for their purposes,” Desai said. “A news organization is independent, we don’t help the government do its job.”
A portion of a judge’s May 10, 2023, ruling ordering The Bakersfield Californian to comply with a subpoena seeking recordings or notes from reporter Ishani Desai’s jailhouse interview with a defendant charged with murder.
",charged without arrest,Superior Court of California,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,State,None,False,[],The Bakersfield Californian,,,, 2023-04-19 13:55:41.507517+00:00,2023-04-19 16:02:06.766241+00:00,Former Fox News producer subpoenaed in defamation suit against Fox,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-fox-news-producer-subpoenaed-in-defamation-suit-against-fox/,2023-04-19 16:02:06.543387+00:00,,LegalOrder object (209),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Abby Grossberg (Fox News),,2023-04-03,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Former Fox News producer Abby Grossberg was subpoenaed as part of a defamation lawsuit against the broadcast company on April 3, 2023.
Smartmatic, which builds and implements electronic voting systems, is pursuing a $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News for broadcasting allegations that the company was involved in potential election fraud during the 2020 presidential election.
The subpoena, which was reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, directs Grossberg to produce extensive documents and communications dating from Jan. 1, 2020 to the present concerning the claims of election interference broadcast by Fox News. The requested files include all correspondence with former President Donald Trump’s attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, as well as all communications with Fox News or its parent company, Fox Corp, concerning the 2020 election and the network’s coverage of it.
Grossberg’s attorney Parisis Filippatos told NBC News that the former producer intends to fully comply with the subpoena, which instructs her to produce the documents within 20 days. Filippatos did not respond to an email requesting further comment.
According to NBC, Grossberg worked at Fox from 2019 to March 24, 2023, and was fired after filing a lawsuit against the network alleging that she was coerced into giving misleading deposition testimony in a separate libel lawsuit against the broadcast company, which was settled on April 18. Fox told NBC that she was fired after divulging privileged information.
Fox News did not respond to an email requesting additional comment.
A portion of a subpoena issued to former Fox News producer Abby Grossberg on April 3, 2023, seeking documents and communications concerning the network’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election.
",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,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,"election, Election 2020",,, 2023-06-27 13:27:42.917874+00:00,2023-06-27 15:08:30.204224+00:00,Reporter subpoenaed in Staten Island assault case,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-subpoenaed-in-staten-island-assault-case/,2023-06-27 15:08:30.093853+00:00,,LegalOrder object (221),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Maura Grunlund (Staten Island Advance),,2023-03-24,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Reporter Maura Grunlund of the Staten Island Advance newspaper was subpoenaed on March 24, 2023, to testify on conversations with the victim of an assault. By the time the criminal trial ended on April 4, the subpoena had been quashed.
Grunlund reported on a January 2019 attack on Beatrice Kaliku, a resident of New York City borough Staten Island. Police later arrested Linden Beaton for the attack.
Beaton’s attorney subpoenaed Grunlund to testify about statements Kaliku had made about the height of her attacker, attempting to show inconsistencies with Kaliku’s later claims.
According to an undated excerpt of the hearing transcript made available by the Media Law Resource Center, Grunlund’s attorney, Thomas Sullivan of Ballard Spahr, moved to quash the subpoena.
Sullivan argued that the subpoena was not properly served, but also that Grunlund was protected from having to testify under both New York’s reporter shield law and Article 1, Section 8, of the state constitution, a qualified privilege that protects disclosure of information gleaned from newsgathering.
“If every time a newspaper reporter wrote about a criminal case they were called into court to testify,” Sullivan said, “it would be a strong disincentive for the press to do that reporting.”
The judge agreed, ruling to quash the subpoena. Neither Grunlund nor Sullivan responded to requests for comment regarding the subpoena.
Beaton, who had been convicted in 2022 for the kidnapping, rape and murder of another woman a few days after Kaliku’s attack, was ultimately found guilty of assaulting Kaliku and was sentenced on April 25.
Brandon Jarvis, who authors the weekly political newsletter Virginia Scope, was subpoenaed by state Sen. Joe Morrissey on March 8, 2023, as part of the senator’s custody battle.
Jarvis told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he received subpoenas a few weeks after publishing a statement attributed to family members of the senator’s estranged wife, Myrna Morrissey. The judge in the custody case had issued a gag order barring the parents from speaking about the case while it was ongoing.
Jarvis’ attorney, Tom Barbour Jr., said that Joe Morrissey issued three concurrent subpoenas — two addressed to Jarvis and one to the Virginia Scope. Jarvis and the Virginia Scope were both ordered to produce any text messages with Myrna Morrissey, her attorneys or her family members. Jarvis was additionally ordered to appear on March 24 to testify.
Jarvis denied the existence of any such messages in a post on Twitter the day he received the subpoenas.
Just got a subpoena from Joe Morrissey for all my texts with his wife and her family between Feb. 1 and Feb. 5.
— Brandon Jarvis (@Jaaavis) March 9, 2023
Jarvis told the Tracker that receiving the subpoenas and fighting them disrupted his reporting, especially his coverage of Joe Morrissey’s reelection campaign.
“There was other stuff happening in his race that I couldn’t necessarily cover in a timely fashion because I didn’t want to write anything about him while there was a gag order,” Jarvis said. “It was a stressful situation, because at the end of the line there is a possibility of jail time.”
Barbour filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on March 15, arguing in part that Jarvis’ communications are privileged under the First Amendment. A judge for the Chesterfield County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court granted the motion on March 23, but left the door open for the senator to reissue the subpoenas if he exhausts all other avenues for obtaining the information.
In a statement to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Joe Morrissey said he was pleased with the ruling, saying that the judge had made it clear that Jarvis “is by no means off the hook at all.”
Barbour told the Tracker that the case was particularly alarming because of the senator’s position in the state government.
“It would be chilling enough if any citizen were doing it, but in this case we’ve got someone who holds elected office in our commonwealth attempting to determine who the confidential source of a political journalist is,” Barbour said. “I think that’s of great concern.”
Virginia is one of nine states without a shield law protecting journalists from court orders seeking their communications or work product.
The Virginia Scope, a weekly political newsletter, and its author Brandon Jarvis were subpoenaed by state Sen. Joe Morrissey on March 8, 2023, as part of the senator’s custody battle.
Jarvis told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he received subpoenas a few weeks after publishing a statement attributed to family members of the senator’s estranged wife, Myrna Morrissey. The judge in the custody case had issued a gag order barring the parents from speaking about the case while it was ongoing.
Jarvis’ attorney, Tom Barbour Jr., said that Joe Morrissey issued three concurrent subpoenas — one to the Virginia Scope and two addressed to Jarvis. Jarvis and the Virginia Scope were both ordered to produce any text messages with Myrna Morrissey, her attorneys or her family members. Jarvis was additionally ordered to appear on March 24 to testify.
Jarvis denied the existence of any such messages in a post on Twitter the day he received the subpoenas.
Just got a subpoena from Joe Morrissey for all my texts with his wife and her family between Feb. 1 and Feb. 5.
— Brandon Jarvis (@Jaaavis) March 9, 2023
Jarvis told the Tracker that receiving the subpoenas and fighting them disrupted his reporting, especially his coverage of Joe Morrissey’s reelection campaign.
“There was other stuff happening in his race that I couldn’t necessarily cover in a timely fashion because I didn’t want to write anything about him while there was a gag order,” Jarvis said. “It was a stressful situation, because at the end of the line there is a possibility of jail time.”
Barbour filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on March 15, arguing in part that Jarvis’ communications are privileged under the First Amendment. A judge for the Chesterfield County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court granted the motion on March 23, but left the door open for the senator to reissue the subpoenas if he exhausts all other avenues for obtaining the information.
In a statement to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Joe Morrissey said he was pleased with the ruling, saying that the judge had made it clear that Jarvis “is by no means off the hook at all.”
Barbour told the Tracker that the case was particularly alarming because of the senator’s position in the state government.
“It would be chilling enough if any citizen were doing it, but in this case we’ve got someone who holds elected office in our commonwealth attempting to determine who the confidential source of a political journalist is,” Barbour said. “I think that’s of great concern.”
Virginia is one of nine states without a shield law protecting journalists from court orders seeking their communications or work product.
The Bakersfield Californian was subpoenaed on March 3, 2023, for copies of unpublished materials from a jailhouse interview conducted by one of the newspaper’s reporters. While the subpoena was quashed on April 4, a nearly identical subpoena was issued the same day. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented the second subpoena here.
The dispute began after Californian reporter Ishani Desai conducted a jailhouse interview in February with Sebastian Parra. Parra was a key witness in the murder indictment of another inmate, Robert Pernell Roberts, but was subsequently indicted as a co-defendant.
The Californian published Desai’s article about Parra on Feb. 26. On March 3, public defender Alexandria Blythe, who represents Roberts, subpoenaed the newspaper seeking any audio or video recordings of the interview or, if no recording exists, a copy of Desai’s notes and interview questions. The subpoena ordered the newspaper to provide the records by March 20, and whomever has access to the records to attend the hearing on that date.
An attorney representing the newspaper, Thomas Burke, filed objections to the subpoena on March 7. He argued that in addition to the subpoena being improperly filed, all of the requested materials are privileged under California Shield Law, the state constitution and the First Amendment.
On March 15, Blythe reissued the subpoena after correctly notifying The Californian, but kept the March 20 deadline. The newspaper filed a motion to quash the subpoena the following day.
“For decades, California law has protected newsgathering from intrusive measures by overzealous parties involved in criminal and civil cases,” Burke wrote. “[These] subpoenas are precisely the type of overreach that the Shield Law is designed to prevent.”
Kern County Superior Court Judge Elizabet Rodriguez quashed the subpoena on April 4, ruling that Blythe had not shown that the documents would assist in Roberts’ defense. Burke told the Tracker that the judge invited Blythe to refile. According to court records, an identical subpoena was issued that day but not served on The Californian until April 10.
A portion of a subpoena issued to The Bakersfield Californian on March 3, 2023, seeking recordings or notes from reporter Ishani Desai’s jailhouse interview with a defendant charged with murder.
",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,Institution,None,State,None,False,[],The Bakersfield Californian,,,, 2023-09-26 20:36:29.374449+00:00,2023-09-26 20:36:29.374449+00:00,Subpoena for NBC reporter to testify at murder trial quashed,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-for-nbc-reporter-to-testify-at-murder-trial-quashed/,2023-09-26 20:36:29.100908+00:00,,LegalOrder object (242),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Andrea Canning (NBC News),,2023-02-07,False,Binghamton,New York (NY),42.09869,-75.91797,"NBC Dateline reporter Andrea Canning was subpoenaed on Feb. 7, 2023, to testify at an upcoming murder trial. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division quashed the order on Sept. 14.
Canning interviewed Ganesh R. Ramsaran in 2014 as he was awaiting his initial trial for allegedly murdering his wife. The resulting Dateline episode first aired at the end of October 2014. Ramsaran — who has maintained his innocence — was found guilty and sentenced, but was granted a retrial in 2022.
Benjamin Bergman, the special prosecutor in the Ramsaran retrial, issued Canning a subpoena in early 2023 ordering her to testify at trial to confirm the authenticity of her recorded interview with Ramsaran and to speak to the contents of the interview.
While Bergman initially asserted that he only sought to question Canning about the published portions of the interview, according to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he later admitted that he required a witness with knowledge of the unpublished sections.
Attorneys for NBCUniversal filed a motion to quash the subpoena on March 10, arguing that she was protected under New York’s Shield Law.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, Canning wrote: “In my reporting on the criminal justice system, my ability to gain interviewees’ trust hinges on my ability to remain separate from law enforcement and criminal prosecution. If I am forced to act as a witness for the government every time I conduct one of these interviews, my role would be virtually indistinguishable from that of law enforcement.”
Chenango County Judge Frank Revoir Jr. denied Canning’s motion on May 8, ruling that her testimony would not be privileged under the Shield Law and that the evidence sought from her is “critical or necessary” to the prosecution’s case.
Canning’s attorneys filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in Albany in June. On Sept. 14, the five justices of the court unanimously ruled in favor of Canning, finding that the lower court judge had “exceeded his jurisdiction and power.”
“There is a multitude of other evidence against Ramsaran, including the statements that he made during his telephone calls to 911, his girlfriend and to the police, as well as DNA evidence of the blood found on his clothes and the victim’s van,” the justices wrote. “Ramsaran’s statements during the interview do not contradict any of his other statements, but rather corroborate other available evidence against him.”
Neither Canning nor NBC News responded to requests for comment.
A portion of a Feb. 7, 2023, subpoena ordering NBC Dateline correspondent Andrea Canning to testify at the retrial of a man charged with murdering his wife. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division quashed the order on Sept. 14.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-05-12 13:06:33.843022+00:00,2023-07-13 22:26:24.072956+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed by DC construction company after libel claims dismissed,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-by-dc-construction-company-after-libel-claims-dismissed/,2023-07-13 22:26:23.957065+00:00,,LegalOrder object (211),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Natalie Delgadillo (DCist),,2023-01-20,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"Natalie Delgadillo, the managing editor of DCist, was issued a subpoena on Jan. 20, 2023, in connection with a protracted legal dispute involving a Washington, D.C.-based construction company. The subpoena was subsequently quashed and the company sanctioned by the court.
The dispute began after the district’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against Precision Contracting Solutions, LLC, owner Derrick Sieber and his father, Stephen Sieber, in July 2019, alleging violations of consumer protection and construction codes. Delgadillo reported on the suit and a press release from the attorney general, and subsequently updated the article with comments from the Siebers and a customer to whom Stephen Sieber had referred her.
According to a court filing from Delgadillo’s attorney, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Stephen Sieber began leaving “disturbing” voicemail messages for Delgadillo in January 2020. That March, the Siebers filed a defamation lawsuit against her and American University, which owns DCist through its NPR affiliate radio station WAMU. The Siebers attempted to force Delgadillo to testify in court multiple times throughout the defamation proceedings, but the judge consistently denied their requests.
Though the judge dismissed the libel claims against Delgadillo and AU under the district’s Anti-SLAPP Act in June 2020, he reversed the decision on procedural grounds more than a year later in July 2021. The claims were again dismissed in February 2022, and later that year Delgadillo and AU were awarded nearly $116,000 in attorneys fees and costs.
As the attorney general’s lawsuit against the company progressed, Precision Contracting Solutions indicated an interest in subpoenaing Delgadillo and other journalists at DCist multiple times in the fall of 2020, but did not do so until January 2023.
Stephen Sieber issued a subpoena to Delgadillo on Jan. 20, ordering her to appear to testify in May when the trial was scheduled to begin. Charles Tobin, an attorney representing the journalist, filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Feb. 16, arguing that the Siebers had harassed her and her colleagues for nearly three years.
Tobin also requested that the court issue sanctions against the Siebers and grant a protective order to prevent Delgadillo or any of her DCist colleagues from being forced to testify at the trial.
Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna granted all three requests on March 30, ruling that Stephen Sieber had acted in bad faith and had been repeatedly instructed that any testimony from Delgadillo was protected under reporter’s privilege. On May 2, McKenna awarded Delgadillo more than $20,800 in attorneys fees and costs.
Delgadillo, when contacted by the Tracker, said that she’s still not sure whether the years-long saga has truly ended, but otherwise declined to comment.
A portion of the subpoena issued to DCist Managing Editor Natalie Delgadillo on Jan. 20, 2023, by a construction company after she reported on a lawsuit against it. A judge quashed the subpoena and ordered sanctions against the company.
",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,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-09-21 18:43:34.303966+00:00,2023-11-08 15:25:03.510707+00:00,"Bloomberg subpoenaed for reporter communications, quashed by judge",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/bloomberg-subpoenaed-for-reporter-communications-quashed-by-judge/,2023-11-08 15:25:03.388522+00:00,,LegalOrder object (240),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2023-01-04,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Bloomberg Television parent Bloomberg LP was issued a subpoena for communications between former anchor Stephanie Ruhle and Under Armour founder Kevin Plank on Jan. 4, 2023, as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the sportswear company. A judge quashed the subpoena more than six months later.
A shareholder suit alleged that Under Armour had artificially inflated its share price, costing a shareholder pension fund millions, according to Fox News. Shareholders argued that Ruhle, now a host at MSNBC, advised Plank and did damage control for the company using her platform at Bloomberg Television.
Shareholders had subpoenaed Bloomberg for Ruhle’s communications with Plank and others, as well as any emails sent or received by her concerning Under Armour. They then filed a motion on March 15 to compel the media company to comply with the requests.
Bloomberg argued, however, that shareholders’ allegations that the communications were not protected by reporter’s privilege because Ruhle’s journalistic independence was compromised were false and unfounded.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein ruled in favor of Bloomberg, quashing the subpoena on Aug. 25. “The personal relationship between Ruhle and Plank did not mean that Ruhle was not acting as a journalist with respect to her dealings with Under Armour,” he wrote.
According to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Ruhle gave a deposition in the underlying suit in early 2023. The Tracker was unable to determine whether Ruhle was compelled or voluntarily gave testimony. But Gorenstein said no efforts were made to question Ruhle during her deposition about who she communicated with about Under Armour.
“We will thus not rely on speculation that documents may exist at Bloomberg to justify piercing the journalist privilege,” Gorenstein wrote.
Ruhle did not respond to requests for comment.
In a statement to Puck, a Bloomberg News spokesperson said: “The reporter’s privilege offers essential protections for all newsrooms. It allows journalists to engage in newsgathering without outside interference or pressure, and we think it’s worth fighting for.”
A Bloomberg spokesperson declined to comment further when reached by the Tracker.
A portion of the Jan. 4, 2023, subpoena ordering media company Bloomberg to turn over communications between its former reporter Stephanie Ruhle and the founder of Under Armour and others as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the retailer.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,Bloomberg News,,,, 2022-12-12 16:07:02.529626+00:00,2023-06-28 18:57:44.643304+00:00,Documentary filmmaker subpoenaed again in DOJ Capitol riots investigation,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/documentary-filmmaker-subpoenaed-again-in-doj-capitol-riots-investigation/,2023-06-28 18:57:44.500439+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (204), LegalOrder object (205)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Alex Holder (AJH Media Group),,2022-11-18,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"The Department of Justice subpoenaed documentary filmmaker Alex Holder on Nov. 18, 2022, as part of an investigation related to the Jan. 6, attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Holder was filming that day at the Capitol for his documentary film “Unprecedented,” of then-President Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. In the subpoena, first obtained by Politico, federal prosecutors demanded that Holder testify before a grand jury or turn over all raw footage by the end of November. According to Politico, Holder received an extension and now has until Jan. 30, 2023, to comply with the order.
Holder’s spokesperson did not provide comment by publication, but told The Hill that the filmmaker would cooperate with the latest DOJ order.
“As we did with the other two subpoenas, we will 100 percent comply,” Holder’s spokesperson said.
Holder previously complied with a June 2022 subpoena from the House Committee investigating the Capitol attacks to produce footage from his documentary, including filmed interviews with Trump, his children and former Vice President Mike Pence. In July, Holder appeared before a special grand jury in Georgia after the Fulton District Attorney subpoenaed him for footage related to the documentary as part of an investigation into election fraud during the 2020 election.
A portion of the subpoena issued to filmmaker Alex Holder on Nov. 18, 2022, seeking testimony and raw footage gathered during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, for his documentary “Unprecedented."
Scioto Valley Guardian Editor-in-Chief Derek Myers was charged with felony wiretapping on Oct. 31, 2022, after publishing a recording of witness testimony from an ongoing trial in Waverly, Ohio.
Myers told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he has been covering the murder trial of George Wagner IV, which began in September. As part of that coverage, the newspaper was using a laptop to livestream witness testimony and exhibits. Judge Randy Deering issued an order before the trial began allowing anyone testifying in the case to “opt out” of being filmed by the media. The Fourth District Court of Appeals issued an emergency order overruling him partway through the testimony of Wagner’s brother, Jake, who was indicted alongside Wagner and their parents for the 2016 killings of eight members of the Rhoden family.
The court ordered that media be allowed to film unless Deering was able to show cause that it could jeopardize the fairness of the trial. Deering ruled that if Jake were to appear on camera he might be “nervous” and untruthful, again barring media from recording video or audio of him.
Myers told the Tracker that he was out of the country when Jake took the stand, but that someone in the courtroom surreptitiously recorded his testimony and provided it to the Guardian. After deliberation, Myers published a condensed version of the audio on Oct. 28.
According to files reviewed by the Tracker, Judge Anthony Moraleja approved a search warrant that day for a Guardian laptop being used to livestream the trial. The Tracker documented the laptop seizure and the illegal seizure of Myers’ cellphone here.
The Pike County Sheriff’s Office subsequently charged Myers with interception of wire, electronic or oral communications, a fourth degree felony. According to court records, he was charged under Ohio Revised Code Section 2933.52 (A)(3), which forbids the use of a recording that one knows or has reason to believe was illegally obtained.
Myers turned himself into custody on Nov. 1 and was released after paying a $20,000 bond. He told the Tracker that he pleaded not guilty at a hearing the following day. He also waived his right to a preliminary hearing, where evidence is presented before a judge who decides whether the case should advance to trial. Instead, his case will be heard by a grand jury, which will determine whether to indict him on the charges.
When reached for comment, the Pike County Prosecutor’s Office told the Tracker that the next grand jury session is scheduled to begin in February 2023, when the new prosecutor takes office.
One of Myers’ attorneys, John Greiner, highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in Bartnicki v. Vopper, which ruled that the media cannot be held liable for publishing information that was obtained illegally by a source.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a founding partner of the Tracker, condemned the equipment seizure and the charges against Myers in a statement.
“The incompetency of local law enforcement to abide by basic legal proceedings would be comical if it were not so concerning,” said CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Not only have Pike County authorities confiscated journalist Derek Myers’ cellphone and the Scioto Valley Guardian’s laptop without presenting a valid warrant, but they have also lobbed wiretapping charges against Myers for keeping the community informed about an ongoing murder trial. Retaliating against a news outlet, especially a small local publication, for doing their jobs in matters of public interest is completely unacceptable.”
Myers told the Tracker he hasn’t been able to cover the trial since his arrest.
“I tasked myself with covering this eight-week trial and I should be there covering it, but I can’t because I don’t have the equipment,” Myers said. “And, frankly, I don’t feel safe in that courthouse. If I take another cellphone down there they’ll probably seize that too.”
Scioto Valley Guardian Editor-in-Chief Derek Myers was charged with felony wiretapping on Oct. 31, 2022, after publishing an obtained recording of testimony from an ongoing murder trial in Waverly, Ohio.
",arrested and released,Pike County Sheriff's Office,None,2022-11-01,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-11-08 20:51:03.315316+00:00,2023-11-03 18:02:12.856665+00:00,"Editor’s laptop, cellphone seized following publication of courtroom recording",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/editors-laptop-cellphone-seized-following-publication-of-courtroom-recording/,2023-11-03 18:02:12.719391+00:00,,LegalOrder object (202),,"Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,"cellphone: count of 1, computer: count of 1",,Derek Myers (Scioto Valley Guardian),,2022-10-28,False,Waverly,Ohio (OH),39.12673,-82.98546,"An Ohio judge authorized the search and seizure of a laptop belonging to the Scioto Valley Guardian on Oct. 28, 2022. An officer with the Pike County Sheriff’s Office also seized the cellphone of the outlet’s top editor — without a warrant — a few days later.
Guardian Editor-in-Chief Derek Myers told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he has been covering the ongoing murder trial of George Wagner IV, which began in September. As part of that coverage, the newspaper was using a laptop to livestream witness testimony and exhibits. Judge Randy Deering issued an order before the trial began allowing anyone testifying in the case to “opt out” of being filmed by the media. The Fourth District Court of Appeals issued an emergency order overruling him partway through the testimony of Wagner’s brother, Jake, who was indicted alongside Wagner and their parents for the 2016 killings of eight members of the Rhoden family.
The court ordered that media be allowed to film unless Deering was able to show cause that it could jeopardize the fairness of the trial. Deering ruled that if Jake were to appear on camera he might be “nervous” and untruthful, again barring media from recording video or audio of him.
Myers told the Tracker that he was out of the country when Jake took the stand, but that someone in the courtroom surreptitiously recorded his testimony and provided it to the Guardian. After deliberation, Myers said he elected to move forward with publishing a condensed version of the audio on Oct. 28.
According to files reviewed by the Tracker, county court Judge Anthony Moraleja approved a search warrant for the Guardian laptop that same day, authorizing the search of the MacBook Pro and any computer software or communications contained on its hard drive. Myers told the Tracker someone from the court then seized the laptop, causing the outlet’s livestream to go down.
One of Myers’ attorneys, Greg Barwell, sent a letter on Oct. 31 asking the sheriff, prosecutor and the court to return the equipment, as the Guardian had not been presented with a subpoena or search warrant.
Myers went to the Pike County Courthouse on Nov. 2 to ask for the return of the laptop in person, as he still believed it had been seized by someone from the court. Unbeknownst to the Guardian, the laptop had been taken into custody by the sheriff’s office the previous day.
Myers told the Tracker that when he passed through the metal detector, a captain from the sheriff’s department told him he would have to take his cellphone back outside. He responded that he wouldn’t be going into the courtroom — where cellphones and laptops are prohibited — but would be remaining on the first floor.
Myers said the officer then kept his cellphone, claiming, “On second thought, I think I have a search warrant for that.”
The officer also told Myers that they had a search warrant for the laptop. The item seizure report reviewed by the Tracker has “Black I-Phone” written below the MacBook, confirming that it was seized at 10:29 a.m. on Nov. 2.
One of Myers’ attorneys, John Greiner, told the Tracker that the seizure of the devices likely violated Ohio’s shield law and the federal Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits searching or seizing journalistic work products with few exceptions.
In connection with the publication of the testimony recording, Myers was charged with intercepting wire, oral or electronic communications — a fourth degree felony — on Oct. 31. The Tracker has documented those charges here.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a founding partner of the Tracker, condemned the equipment seizure and the charges against Myers in a statement.
“The incompetency of local law enforcement to abide by basic legal proceedings would be comical if it were not so concerning,” said CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Not only have Pike County authorities confiscated journalist Derek Myers’ cellphone and the Scioto Valley Guardian’s laptop without presenting a valid warrant, but they have also lobbed wiretapping charges against Myers for keeping the community informed about an ongoing murder trial. Retaliating against a news outlet, especially a small local publication, for doing their jobs in matters of public interest is completely unacceptable.”
Myers told the Tracker that he was able to regain control over his cellphone number on Nov. 4, but having the devices returned remains his and his attorneys’ first priority. He said he was extremely concerned about the potential search of the devices as they contain sensitive work product and source communications
“I can’t effectively do my job because I’m so focused and scared and worried about all these other people and their livelihoods are now on the line,” Myers said. “And I can’t cover the trial because I don’t have the equipment.”
On Oct. 28, 2022, an Ohio judge authorized the search and seizure of a Scioto Valley Guardian laptop, shown here in a screenshot from the search warrant, that the outlet was using to livestream a Waverly murder trial.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,in custody,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-12-07 20:07:49.626557+00:00,2023-06-29 16:10:50.977456+00:00,KC broadcast station subpoenaed for unaired interview footage,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/kc-broadcast-station-subpoenaed-for-unaired-interview-footage/,2023-06-29 16:10:50.883548+00:00,,LegalOrder object (201),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2022-10-26,False,Topeka,Kansas (KS),39.04833,-95.67804,"Missouri-based broadcaster KMBC-TV was issued a subpoena on Oct. 26, 2022, seeking all recordings and notes from multiple interviews as part of a lawsuit accusing Kansas Highway Patrol of misconduct.
Five women who are current or former highway patrol employees filed a lawsuit against the agency’s superintendent and assistant superintendent, as well as the State of Kansas, in February 2021. The Kansas City Star reported that the women allege the agency had a hostile work environment, with a culture of sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
According to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, the subpoena orders KMBC to produce any notes or audio or video recordings of interviews conducted with the plaintiffs, including outtakes and other unaired footage, by Nov. 14.
It is unclear if KMBC, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment, has or intends to comply with the order. No motion to quash the subpoena had been filed with the court as of Dec. 7.
Gaye Tibbets, an attorney representing the state and the highway patrol officers, told the Star in mid-November that they were negotiating with KMBC over the subpoena, but did not elaborate on the content of the disputes.
Tibbets did not respond to requests for further comment.
First Amendment attorney Max Kautsch, who is the president of the Kansas Coalition for Open Government, told the Star he was perplexed by the subpoena as it seeks documents that are explicitly protected by the state’s shield law.
“The Legislature passed this law almost 15 years ago for the express purpose of insulating journalists from misguided attempts to bring journalists into court,” Kautsch said.
A portion of the subpoena issued to Kansas City, Missouri, broadcaster KMBC-TV on Oct. 26, 2022, seeking all footage and notes from interviews with five plaintiffs suing the State of Kansas and two highway patrol officers.
",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,KMBC-TV,,,, 2022-12-12 22:07:28.870034+00:00,2024-02-29 15:13:19.592676+00:00,"Investigative reporter subpoenaed in lawsuit against Maui County, officer",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/investigative-reporter-subpoenaed-in-lawsuit-against-maui-county-officer/,2024-02-29 15:13:19.484411+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (199), LegalOrder object (200)",(2023-01-20 14:27:00+00:00) Judge quashes subpoena of Hawaii investigative reporter,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Lynn Kawano (Hawaii News Now),,2022-10-13,False,Honolulu,Hawaii (HI),21.30694,-157.85833,"Lynn Kawano, the chief investigative reporter for Hawaii News Now, was issued a subpoena on Oct. 13, 2022, seeking communications and testimony in connection with an ongoing lawsuit before the District Court of Hawaii in Honolulu.
Three women filed a lawsuit against a Maui Police Department officer and Maui County alleging the officer abused his position of power to coerce them into having sex with him, according to Honolulu Civil Beat. Kawano first reported on the allegations in August 2019.
According to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, the county sent a letter to Kawano’s attorneys that alleged that Kawano stepped outside of her role as a journalist and acted as an adviser to the women, suggesting they contact attorney Michael Green.
“It is clear that Ms. Kawano has not confined herself to news gathering, but has become an advisor to the plaintiffs,” the letter stated.
Neither Kawano nor Hawaii News Now responded to emailed requests for comment.
The county issued Kawano a subpoena for documents and testimony on Oct. 13, but did not serve her the court order until Oct. 25, according to court filings. The subpoena orders Kawano to produce her communications with Green and the three women, as well as any “attorney referral agreement or client referral agreement” between Kawano and Green or his law firm.
Bruce Voss, Kawano’s attorney, sent an objection letter to the county on Oct. 31 stating that in addition to not serving the subpoena with sufficient time before the deposition date of Nov. 1, that Kawano’s communications are protected by journalist’s privilege.
The county reissued the subpoena on Nov. 9, ordering Kawano to produce the same collection of documents and to appear for a deposition on Dec. 1. According to court documents, Voss filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Kawano’s behalf on Nov. 26.
“HNN can only surmise that the County of Maui is attempting to establish some nefarious plot (that does not exist) for the purposes of distracting from some very bad facts in this case,” the motion states. “Ms. Kawano, as a journalist, is not a discovery depot for the County of Maui.”
Voss declined to comment when reached by email, citing the pending motion to quash. A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for Jan. 5, 2023.
A portion of the subpoena issued to Hawaii News Now investigative reporter Lynn Kawano as part of an ongoing lawsuit three women brought against Maui County and a Maui police officer alleging coercion and sexual harassment.
",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,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2022-11-09 18:53:58.972581+00:00,2023-06-29 16:11:27.606259+00:00,Boston Globe editor subpoenaed for testimony in Harvard admissions bribery case,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/boston-globe-editor-subpoenaed-for-testimony-in-harvard-admissions-bribery-case/,2023-06-29 16:11:27.498080+00:00,,LegalOrder object (198),(2022-12-13 14:45:00+00:00) Boston Globe editor compelled to testify in Harvard admissions bribery case,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Joshua Miller (Boston Globe),,2022-10-11,False,Boston,Massachusetts (MA),42.35843,-71.05977,"Boston Globe journalist Joshua Miller was subpoenaed for testimony as part of a Harvard University admissions scandal criminal case in Boston, Massachusetts, on Oct. 11, 2022.
In April 2019, Miller, now the Globe’s politics editor, broke the story of bribes allegedly paid to Harvard’s fencing coach, Peter Brand, by Maryland businessman Jie Zhao. According to the Globe, Zhao purchased Brand’s house at nearly twice its value. In return, Brand allegedly helped facilitate Harvard admission for Zhao’s two sons by recruiting them to the university’s fencing team.
Two months after the Globe published the story, the Department of Justice launched a grand jury inquiry. Brand and Zhao were formally indicted on federal bribery charges in 2020.
Globe legal counsel Jonathan M. Albano challenged the 2022 subpoena for Miller’s testimony in a Nov. 3 motion to quash, arguing that it’s not vital to the government’s case.
Albano requested that the judge instead issue a protective order for an in-camera review of Miller's recorded interview with Zhao. In a written declaration submitted to the court, Miller stated that testifying would force him to disclose confidential sources he felt “duty-bound to protect” and could have a negative impact on future reporting.
“I believe this will inhibit sources from speaking to me in the future because they will not trust that our conversations will exclusively be used for news reporting,” Miller stated. “I believe they will speak less frankly to me, or not speak to me at all, since they may fear that what they tell me will become something I will later testify about in criminal or civil litigation.”
Neither Miller nor Albano responded to requests for comment from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
On Nov. 8, the DOJ filed an opposition to the motion to quash, claiming only Miller can provide first-hand knowledge of Zhao’s statements to him. The federal bribery trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 5.
A portion of the subpoena issued to Boston Globe editor Joshua Miller seeking testimony in a federal bribery case connected to a Harvard admissions scandal. — SCREENSHOT
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['CARRIED_OUT'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-09-27 17:41:09.041418+00:00,2024-02-29 19:10:27.753285+00:00,"Devices illegally seized in investigation of reporter’s murder, Review-Journal argues",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/devices-illegally-seized-in-investigation-of-reporters-murder-review-journal-argues/,2024-02-29 19:10:27.606479+00:00,,LegalOrder object (197),"(2022-10-11 15:26:00+00:00) Judge grants injunction barring searching slain reporter’s devices until agreement reached, (2022-11-15 13:47:00+00:00) Judges side with Review-Journal in series of rulings on seizure of slain reporter’s devices, (2022-10-05 11:34:00+00:00) Judge grants Review-Journal emergency protective order against searching slain reporter’s devices, (2024-01-25 14:43:00+00:00) Review-Journal staff authorized to search slain reporter’s devices, (2022-10-19 12:05:00+00:00) Injunction to be heard by Nevada Supreme Court following police department appeal, (2023-10-05 15:04:00+00:00) Nevada top court says search protocol in Jeff German case violates privilege, (2022-12-16 14:30:00+00:00) Review-Journal files for sanctions after learning that police searched journalist’s phone, (2023-01-25 15:40:00+00:00) Judge denies sanctions against the Las Vegas police for search slain reporter’s phone","Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,"cellphone: count of 1, computer: count of 4, storage device: count of 1",,Jeff German (Las Vegas Review-Journal),,2022-09-03,True,Las Vegas,Nevada (NV),36.17497,-115.13722,"The Las Vegas Review-Journal filed a motion for a protective order on Sept. 26, 2022, arguing that authorities should be barred from searching the electronic devices seized as part of the investigation into the murder of reporter Jeff German.
German, who had covered crime and political corruption in Las Vegas for more than 40 years, was stabbed outside his home on Sept. 2. Clark County Public Administrator Robert Telles was arrested on suspicion of murder less than a week later and is being held without bail awaiting trial.
According to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, both Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo and Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson contacted the Review-Journal, alerting the newspaper to the seizure of German’s devices and requesting a waiver to allow authorities to search them.
The Clark County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
In total, officers seized an iPhone, three iMacs, a Macbook and an external hard drive from German’s home, according to the motion. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department told the newspaper in writing on Sept. 16 that the devices had not been searched and would not be until the court issued an order authorizing the review.
Ashley Kissinger, an attorney representing the newspaper, sent a letter to the Metro Police Department, the Clark County public defender representing Telles and the District Attorney’s Office on Sept. 21 listing their concerns and requesting a call to further discuss the issue. Kissinger sent a follow up letter two days later proposing a resolution before resorting to filing a motion for a protective order.
When reached for comment, Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook provided a copy of the motion and declined to comment further.
The letters and the motion filed on the Review-Journal’s behalf on Sept. 26 argue that German’s contacts, communications and work product are protected from seizure and review under Nevada’s shield law and the federal Privacy Protection Act.
“The Review-Journal appreciates the efforts of law enforcement to investigate the murder of Mr. German, and of all those seeking to ensure that justice is done for this horrific crime,” the motion states. “However, the newspaper has serious and urgent concerns about the protection of confidential sources and other unpublished journalistic work product contained in the Seized Devices.”
The motion further requests that the court allow the Review-Journal to review the devices, identify the newsgathering materials contained on them and determine whether it wishes to waive its privilege concerning any of the files.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a founding partner of the Tracker, expressed its support for the newspaper.
“A murder investigation should not be used as a pretext to access unreported source material that should be protected by both the First Amendment and Nevada’s shield law,” CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen said in a statement. “If law enforcement were to gain access to decades of Jeff German’s unpublished work, including sensitive source material, it would make an already difficult situation even worse.”
According to the court filing, a hearing on the motion is scheduled for Sept. 28.
A portion of the motion filed on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal seeking to protect the newsgathering materials contained on multiple devices seized from slain reporter Jeff German’s home in September 2022.
",None,None,None,None,False,A-22-859361-C,['ONGOING'],Civil,in custody,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2022-11-30 21:20:30.396420+00:00,2023-06-29 16:12:03.730019+00:00,Judge quashes subpoena of opinion editor as part of Flint water suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/judge-quashes-subpoena-of-opinion-editor-as-part-of-flint-water-suit/,2023-06-29 16:12:03.600171+00:00,,LegalOrder object (194),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Brendan Clarey (Detroit News),,2022-09-01,False,Ann Arbor,Michigan (MI),42.27756,-83.74088,"Two Detroit News editors were issued subpoenas on Sept. 1, 2022, as part of ongoing litigation around the contamination of the water system in Flint, Michigan. The subpoenas, which ordered Opinion Editor Brendan Clarey and Editor and Publisher Gary Miles to turn over documents and sit for depositions, were subsequently quashed.
The Detroit News had published an opinion piece on Aug. 31 that criticized a lawsuit brought against two engineering firms for their alleged role in the water crisis. Earlier that month, a federal judge had declared a mistrial in the case.
The subpoenas, issued by the plaintiff’s after the mistrial, sought all communications and newsgathering material related to the op-ed, which was written by the president of The American Tort Reform Association. The subpoenas also specifically sought information about the editorial process for the op-ed and whether one of the engineering firms was involved in placing the piece.
Miles, who responded to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s request for comment, said that at first they didn’t know that Clarey had also been issued a subpoena because he was on family leave. The Tracker has documented Miles’ subpoena here.
Miles said that before the op-ed was published, a reporter at the newspaper had contacted the plaintiffs’ attorney for comment on a separate news story, which concerned a possible public relations campaign being waged by the defendants.
Miles said that, while he doesn’t know the rationale of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, it’s possible they feared or suspected the news organization was being co-opted by defendants, because the op-ed ran before the news story was published.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Corey Stern issued the subpoenas and sent a letter to The Detroit News’ attorneys on Sept. 1, accusing the newspaper of publishing defamatory claims about him and of conspiring with the defendants in the suit.
Attorneys for Clarey and Miles filed a motion to quash on Oct. 17.
“The burden on Mr. Miles and Mr. Clarey to attend depositions and produce documents is great, as it potentially requires them to produce confidential, unpublished material and communications,” the motion stated. “Allowing access to these materials and communications from a journalist will severely inhibit the flow of accurate information to the interested public.”
District Judge Judith Levy ruled in favor of the journalists on Nov. 17.
“While there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate for a party to take third-party discovery from a media outlet,” Levy wrote in her ruling, “this is not one of them.”
A portion of the motion filed on behalf of Detroit News editors Gary Miles and Brendan Clarey seeking to quash the subpoenas issued them by plaintiffs in an ongoing Flint water crisis lawsuit on Sept. 1, 2022.
",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,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-11-30 21:22:33.975137+00:00,2023-06-29 16:12:20.772099+00:00,Two Detroit News editors subpoenaed as part of Flint water suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/two-detroit-news-editors-subpoenaed-as-part-of-flint-water-suit/,2023-06-29 16:12:20.659204+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (195), LegalOrder object (196)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Gary Miles (Detroit News),,2022-09-01,False,Ann Arbor,Michigan (MI),42.27756,-83.74088,"Two Detroit News editors were issued subpoenas on Sept. 1, 2022, as part of ongoing litigation around the contamination of the water system in Flint, Michigan. The subpoenas, which ordered Editor and Publisher Gary Miles and Opinion Editor Brendan Clarey to turn over documents and sit for depositions, were subsequently quashed.
The Detroit News had published an opinion piece on Aug. 31 that criticized a lawsuit brought against two engineering firms for their alleged role in the water crisis. Earlier that month, a federal judge had declared a mistrial in the case.
The subpoenas, issued by the plaintiffs after the mistrial, sought all communications and newsgathering material related to the op-ed, which was written by the president of The American Tort Reform Association. The subpoenas also specifically sought information about the editorial process for the op-ed and whether one of the engineering firms was involved in placing the piece.
Editor and Publisher Miles told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that before the op-ed was published, a reporter at the newspaper had contacted the plaintiffs’ attorney for comment on a separate news story, which concerned a possible public relations campaign being waged by the defendants.
Miles said that, while he doesn’t know the rationale of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, it’s possible they feared or suspected the news organization was being co-opted by defendants, because the op-ed ran before the news story was published.
“They also might have simply seen the timing of the op-ed as another glaring example of the defendants trying to influence a prospective jury before it was seated for retrial,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Corey Stern issued the subpoenas and sent a letter to The Detroit News’ attorneys on Sept. 1, accusing the newspaper of publishing defamatory claims about him and of conspiring with the defendants in the suit.
An attorney representing Miles sent a letter to Stern on Sept. 27, stating that Miles would not comply with the subpoena and that they’d file a motion to quash the request if the plaintiffs refused to withdraw it.
“You are attempting to use the discovery process in an ongoing litigation to investigate your own meritless defamation claims,” the letter said. “This is an improper use of the discovery process, and we are confident the Court will not endorse this type of fishing expedition in the context of the ongoing Flint Water Litigation.”
Miles told the Tracker that at first they didn’t know that Opinion Editor Clarey had also been issued a subpoena, as he was on family leave. The Tracker has documented Clarey’s subpoena here.
The plaintiffs refused to withdraw their subpoenas, and attorneys for Clarey and Miles filed a motion to quash on Oct. 17.
“The burden on Mr. Miles and Mr. Clarey to attend depositions and produce documents is great, as it potentially requires them to produce confidential, unpublished material and communications,” the motion stated. “Allowing access to these materials and communications from a journalist will severely inhibit the flow of accurate information to the interested public.”
District Judge Judith Levy ruled in favor of the journalists on Nov. 17.
“While there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate for a party to take third-party discovery from a media outlet,” Levy wrote in her ruling, “this is not one of them.”
Miles told the Tracker he was pleased with the judge’s ruling, and he hopes that it will set a precedent for protecting journalists from being targeted with similar fishing expeditions.
“Even though there’s an expense to fighting off a subpoena like this, I think that’s ultimately the reward,” Miles said. “You can’t use the media to do your discovery, because the media has to have some manner of independence from the discovery in civil lawsuits so we’re not seen as an arm of one side or another.”
A portion of the subpoena issued to Detroit News Editor and Published Gary Miles on Sept. 1, 2022. The subpoena sought communications, work product and testimony in connection with an ongoing Flint water crisis lawsuit.
",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,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-06-20 15:55:20.989989+00:00,2023-06-20 18:39:29.339369+00:00,"Radio correspondent subpoenaed, testifies in Oath Keepers criminal trial",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/radio-correspondent-subpoenaed-testifies-in-oath-keepers-criminal-trial/,2023-06-20 18:39:29.216745+00:00,,LegalOrder object (215),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Micah Loewinger (On the Media),,2022-08-15,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"On the Media correspondent Micah Loewinger was subpoenaed on Aug. 15, 2022, to testify in a criminal trial against multiple individuals involved in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. He took the stand in the case two months later.
In a May 2023 report for OTM, Loewinger said that on Jan. 6 he was monitoring a conversation about the Stop the Steal rally on a push-to-talk walkie-talkie cellphone app called Zello and recorded real-time chatter with members of the Oath Keepers. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the militia movement as “one of the largest far-right antigovernment groups in the U.S. today.”
Loewinger also published some details from the recording in an article for The Guardian and spoke on 60 Minutes about how the app was used to mobilize the attack on the Capitol.
A few months after the riot, Loewinger said he was contacted about the recording by a Department of Justice attorney helping to lead the criminal prosecution against the Oath Keepers.
“I thought maybe if I got this guy on the phone, I might be able to glean some useful information about the investigation that would help my own reporting, maybe even a juicy scoop,” Loewinger reported on OTM.
But when the prosecutor told him that the lead FBI agent was also interested in speaking with him, Loewinger said he became concerned they would use the Zello tape as a pretense to seize his phone and computer to gain access to his interviews and notes concerning the insurrection.
After consulting with colleagues at WNYC, which produces OTM, Loewinger posted the full, nearly 2 1⁄2-hour-long recording online so he wouldn’t have to act as a middleman. The prosecutor told Loewinger, however, that to use the recording as evidence in the trial someone would have to testify vouching for its authenticity.
“As the person who made the recording, I was the only one who could do it,” Loewinger said. “When the DOJ asked if I would testify voluntarily, my lawyer declined on my behalf, pointing to the importance of journalistic independence. Hence, the subpoena.”
After weighing the possibility of fighting the subpoena and the risk of imprisonment were he to refuse to comply, Loewinger said he “begrudgingly” testified.
Loewinger took the stand on Oct. 17, according to Courthouse News. Daily Kos reporter Brandi Buchman tweeted live from the courtroom that afternoon, writing on Twitter that the correspondent testified for approximately half an hour, describing how Zello works and how he captured the recording.
Separately, Loewinger noted In his report for OTM that when meeting with the lead prosecutor and an FBI agent, they asked him about records they had obtained from Zello, including details of when he used the app and whom he had messaged in the lead up to Jan. 6, 2021.
“Maybe I should know better, but I was shocked to see just how easy it was for the government to access some of the personal data related to my reporting,” Loewinger said.
Loewinger declined to comment when reached by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. The Tracker was unable to confirm whether a subpoena was issued to Zello for Loewinger’s records.
Journalist Jim DeRogatis was issued a subpoena for testimony in the federal trial of R&B singer Robert “R.” Kelly in Chicago, Illinois, on Aug. 3, 2022. The judge quashed the subpoena on Sept. 7.
DeRogatis — a reporter, music critic, author and an associate professor at Columbia College Chicago — has reported extensively on Kelly for The Chicago Sun-Times and The New Yorker, and in 2019 he authored the book “Soulless: The Case Against R. Kelly.”
DeRogatis told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that an individual delivered an unmarked videocassette with footage of Kelly and a 14-year-old girl to his home in February 2002. DeRogatis said that within four hours of receiving the footage, he and the editorial staff at the Sun-Times turned it over to police and it was subsequently used as evidence in Kelly’s state criminal trial in 2008.
The judge in the case compelled DeRogatis to testify during that first trial, but upon advice from counsel DeRogatis refused to answer any questions, reading instead a statement citing his Fifth and First Amendment rights.
DeRogatis told the Tracker that following the first trial, he was aware that he might again be called to testify in the federal case. In 2022, attorneys for Derrel McDavid — Kelly’s former business manager and co-defendant in the case — issued DeRogatis the subpoena, ordering him to appear to provide trial testimony on Sept. 6.
In court filings reviewed by the Tracker, McDavid’s attorney’s cited interest in April 2019 emails between DeRogatis and Assistant U.S. Attorney Angel Krull, the former lead prosecutor on the case.
DeRogatis told the Tracker he was on assignment for The New Yorker when he contacted Krull about the two federal investigations and in the course of the conversation had offered to send her a copy of his then-forthcoming book. Krull then emailed him from a non-governmental email address and he sent along a PDF of his book. DeRogatis said he never heard back from her and has not communicated with Krull since.
DeRogatis and The New Yorker jointly filed an emergency motion to quash the subpoena or issue a protective order on Sept. 6. The motion argued that all of the information or knowledge that DeRogatis may have that would be pertinent to the case had been published in his reporting.
During a hearing on Sept. 7, attorneys for McDavid told District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber that they wanted to show DeRogatis the cassette and ask him to confirm whether it was the same one he had received in 2002, according to DeRogatis. The prosecutors, who had not previously expressed an interest in questioning DeRogatis, told the judge they also hoped to ask the journalist to confirm the timeline of his reporting while at the Sun-Times.
Seth Stern, the attorney representing DeRogatis at the hearing, confirmed to the Tracker that Leinenweber granted the motion to quash the subpoena that day. Stern said that the judge agreed that the testimony they were seeking was “cumulative, redundant, unnecessary.”
A good day for the First Amendment. And anything I could possibly have been asked I’ve already reported. pic.twitter.com/lwQeOcFL0w
— Jim DeRogatis (@JimDeRogatis) September 7, 2022
“I would have sat on the stand and read my whole book if they had 10 or 15 hours,” DeRogatis said. “In 22 years of reporting on this case, I have not had a single correction, clarification, retraction or lawsuit. My reporting stands. I’m proud of that work.”
Stern said that while he was gratified with the outcome in this case, the subpoena itself can set a precedent that may chill future reporting.
“Absent a federal shield law, there’s really no certainty that a reporter getting a subpoena like this can have regarding whether they’ll need to testify or not,” Stern said. “Fortunately, in this case the judge made the right call, but you never know what’s going to happen in the next one.”
Kelly was convicted on three counts of child pornography and three counts of enticement of a minor to engage in criminal sexual acts on Sept. 14, CNN reported. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison in June on racketeering charges in a second federal trial in New York. McDavid and Kelly’s second co-defendant, Milton Brown, were acquitted of all charges.
A portion of the subpoena issued to music journalist James (Jim) DeRogatis seeking trial testimony in the federal case against singer R. Kelly. The subpoena was quashed on Sept. 7, 2022.
",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,,,,, 2022-08-16 18:45:23.885706+00:00,2023-06-28 18:59:29.448184+00:00,Subpoena for CNN footage quashed in criminal case against Capitol rioter,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-for-cnn-footage-quashed-in-criminal-case-against-capitol-rioter/,2023-06-28 18:59:29.320095+00:00,,LegalOrder object (192),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2022-07-25,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"CNN was served a criminal trial subpoena on July 25, 2022, by a defendant facing charges stemming from his alleged participation in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The subpoena, which sought approximately two hours of raw footage from an interview with a Capitol Police officer, was subsequently quashed.
According to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, defendant Kyle Fitzsimons is facing an 11-count indictment and is accused of having attacked multiple law enforcement officers near the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace.
CNN broadcasted an interview with two Capitol Police officers on June 4, one of whom is believed to have been assaulted by Fitzsimons. The subpoena — which was issued on July 20, 2022, and served five days later — requests “any and all raw footage” from the officer’s interview.
According to CNN’s motion to quash the subpoena, the officer does not mention Fitzsimons by name and Fitzsimons does not appear in any of the footage.
CNN attempted to narrow the request for only the telecast footage but Fitzsimons’ counsel declined. The outlet did not respond to requests for comment as of press time.
The outlet’s Aug. 10 motion to quash argued that the subpoena was a “fishing expedition,” and that Fitzsimons has no reason to believe that the outtakes from the interview will help his defense when the alleged acts were captured by Capitol surveillance cameras and the officers’ body cams.
“Allowing speculative discovery of the press here, on the basis that an unsworn statement in unpublished newsgathering information might theoretically become useful to the defense for purposes of impeachment, would expose a host of media organizations to similar speculative subpoenas in similar January 6 prosecutions,” the motion stated. “That would undeniably chill news reporting about this topic of clear national importance — the ‘violent breach of the Capitol’ that ‘was a grave danger to our democracy.’”
District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled in favor of CNN on Aug. 14, finding that while Fitzsimons was able to specifically name the material sought, he failed to justify the request with more than hopes of what might be found in the outtakes.
Fitzsimons’ trial is scheduled to begin on Aug. 16.
A portion of the subpoena issued to CNN seeking approximately two hours of raw footage from an interview with a Capitol Police officer in connection with the criminal trial of a Capitol rioter.
",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,Institution,None,Federal,None,False,None,CNN,"election, Election 2020",,, 2022-07-13 18:55:08.251135+00:00,2024-03-27 13:52:33.655416+00:00,Podcast host subpoenaed a second time for testimony in murder case,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/podcast-host-subpoenaed-a-second-time-for-testimony-in-murder-case/,2024-03-27 13:52:33.489781+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (190), LegalOrder object (191)","(2022-07-15 19:24:00+00:00) Second subpoena for podcast host testimony, documents quashed",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Chris Lambert (Freelance),,2022-07-10,False,Salinas,California (CA),36.67774,-121.6555,"Freelance reporter and podcast host Chris Lambert was issued a second subpoena ordering him to testify during hearings around the 1996 disappearance and murder of a California Polytechnic State University student.
Lambert’s 2019 podcast, “Your Own Backyard,” chronicled his independent investigation of the murder of Cal Poly student Kristin Smart. In the span of 10 episodes, he interviewed new witnesses whom law enforcement officers had cited as “valuable” in their decision to arrest Paul Flores and his father, Ruben Flores, two longtime suspects in the case.
Attorneys for Paul Flores issued a subpoena to Lambert seeking testimony and reporting materials in August 2021, which San Luis Obispo County Superior Judge Craig van Rooyen dismissed, citing California’s journalist shield law. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documented that case here.
The San Luis Obispo Tribune reported that the case was moved to Monterey County Superior Court after van Rooyen ruled that pretrial publicity had made it unlikely that the defendants would receive a fair trial in the county.
On July 10, 2022, Lambert tweeted a photo of a section of the subpoena, which shows that he was ordered both to appear to testify at a hearing as well as provide “items” listed in an attachment. While he did not specify what the items were, the first subpoena demanded confidential interview recordings, emails and notes gathered in the course of producing the podcast.
— Your Own Backyard Podcast (@YOBPodcast) July 10, 2022
Lambert, who could not immediately be reached for comment, told The Tribune his attorney’s advised him against speaking further about the subpoena or providing additional details because of the gag order placed on the case.
According to The Tribune, opening arguments in the case are scheduled for July 18.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution was subpoenaed in July 2022 by a Fulton County special grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump’s possible interference in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results.
The grand jury conducting the criminal investigation into Trump’s potential involvement is seeking audio recordings of a Jan. 11, 2021, phone call involving the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, Bobby Christine.
According to the AJC, Christine was appointed to the role by Trump on Jan. 4, after his predecessor could not find legitimate claims of election fraud. On Jan. 12, 2021, AJC reported on the leaked conference call between Christine and staffers. During the call, Christine said he had dismissed two election fraud cases filed by Trump’s supporters on his first day as a U.S. Attorney.
Prosecutors also issued subpoenas to Trump associates including U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
When reached for comment, an AJC editor said the outlet would be publishing a statement on the subpoena. Fulton County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.
The Fulton County Elections and Administrative Divisions Office in Atlanta in 2021. County prosecutors investigating the 2020 presidential election subpoenaed the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
",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,None,State,None,False,None,Atlanta Journal-Constitution,"election, Election 2020",,, 2022-08-11 21:42:46.054717+00:00,2023-09-15 17:26:55.962586+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed to testify in grand jury hearing on Georgia election interference,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-to-testify-in-grand-jury-hearing-on-georgia-election-interference/,2023-09-15 17:26:55.772605+00:00,,LegalOrder object (188),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,George Chidi (Freelance),,2022-07-01,True,Atlanta,Georgia (GA),33.749,-84.38798,"Independent journalist George Chidi was subpoenaed in July 2022 to testify before a grand jury in Atlanta, Georgia, investigating possible 2020 election interference by former President Donald Trump and his allies.
Chidi, a former reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution whose work has appeared in The Intercept and the Atlanta hyperlocal news site Decaturish, publishes an award-winning newsletter called The Atlanta Objective.
In his June 29 newsletter, Chidi wrote that he was covering the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting of electors at the Georgia Capitol to cast their official votes for Joe Biden when he observed a Republican elector entering a side room.
“I looked around for [a] minute, asking other reporters what’s going on in there, then I launched a Facebook live and walked in,” Chidi wrote. “I asked the people there what they were doing. One of them, a woman, said they were having a meeting. What’s it about, I asked? ‘Education,’ she replied.”
When someone noted that he was filming, someone else quickly ushered him out of the room, Chidi wrote. After that, someone stood guarding the door.
Chidi wrote that he was immediately suspicious and believed 16 Republican electors were working to submit fabricated election results certifying the state’s electoral college votes for Trump despite Biden’s victory in Georgia, posting his suspicions on Facebook.
A special grand jury began meeting in Fulton County in June 2022 to investigate the alleged election interference, according to The Washington Post, and it has identified more than 100 people of interest to date.
According to Chidi’s newsletter, an investigator for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office contacted him on June 27 to ask whether he’d be willing to testify before the grand jury. Chidi did not indicate his response.
Chidi was ultimately issued a subpoena which he unsuccessfully fought in court, according to the Saporta Report. However, the journalist was able to limit the scope of the questions to exclude any unrelated reporting.
“Journalists cannot act as agents of the government. Georgia has a longstanding tradition and legal precedent providing for ‘reporter’s privilege’ to prevent journalists from being used as a witness in a case,” Chidi wrote in his newsletter. “The thing is, the reporter’s privilege bends under extraordinary circumstances. And, honestly, how much more extraordinary does it get than a case that might send Donald Trump to prison.”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that prosecutors notified the newspaper to expect a subpoena for the testimony of reporter Greg Bluestein, who was also present at the December 2020 meeting and who reported extensively about the election and its fallout. The outlet said it will file a motion to quash any subpoena issued to one of its journalists. As of publication, it is unclear if a subpoena has been issued to Bluestein.
A judge ordered the editor of the Everett Leader Herald to release names of confidential sources and unpublished reporting materials on June 30, 2022, as part of a defamation case filed by the mayor of Everett, Massachusetts.
According to UniversalHub, a news and information site for the Boston area, Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria sued Joshua Resnek on Oct. 7, 2021, claiming Resnek published “defamatory falsehoods” in three separate articles in the weeks leading up to the mayoral primary.
The official complaint states that Resnek published an article on Sept. 8, claiming that DeMaria had “extorted the City Clerk into paying him $96,000” as part of a real estate transaction. DeMaria, who did not respond to a request for comment by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, is also suing the city clerk, who was a source for the article, and the publishers of the Leader.
In his ruling, Superior Court Associate Justice James Budreau wrote that the First Amendment did not allow the defendant in a libel case to refuse to identify sources on the grounds of reporter’s privilege, but that some protection was provided. The court would “weigh the relevant public interests for each source to determine whether their identities need to be revealed.”
Budreau granted a partial motion to compel Resnek to reveal the identities of 10 out of 12 sources.
After the ruling, Resnek, who did not respond to a request for comment, agreed to reveal the names and contact information of confidential sources, unpublished notes and emails and will not object to any depositions of sources.
Alex Holder, a documentary filmmaker, complied with a subpoena issued on June 28, 2022, by the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, as part of an investigation into election fraud during the 2020 presidential election.
CNN reported that the subpoena was issued as part of a special grand jury investigation into Trump’s alleged interference in attempts to overturn the state’s election results.
According to a copy of the subpoena obtained by Politico, investigators demanded testimony and all video footage and other materials related to Holder’s documentary, “Unprecedented,” which followed the-President Donald Trump during his 2020 reelection campaign. Holder, who was filming in Georgia for the film, confirmed he complied with the order during an interview with MSNBC.
Holder previously complied with a June 2022 subpoena from the House committee investigating the Capitol riots. In December, a spokesperson for Holder told The Hill he would cooperate with another subpoena issued by the Department of Justice for materials and testimony related to the Jan. 6 attack.
A portion of the subpoena issued to filmmaker Alex Holder on June 28, 2022, by Georgia prosecutors seeking testimony and footage gathered for his documentary “Unprecedented." (SCREENSHOT)
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['CARRIED_OUT'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,"Donald Trump, election, Election 2020",,, 2023-07-06 21:50:38.627179+00:00,2024-03-05 19:16:36.218474+00:00,Former Fox News journalist subpoenaed to reveal confidential source,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-fox-news-journalist-subpoenaed-to-reveal-confidential-source/,2024-03-05 19:16:36.090833+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (226), LegalOrder object (227)","(2023-08-01 16:58:00+00:00) Judge orders journalist to reveal confidential source, (2024-02-29 13:10:00+00:00) Former Fox News reporter held in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoena",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Catherine Herridge (Fox News),,2022-06-16,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"Journalist Catherine Herridge was subpoenaed on June 16, 2022, about coverage of a federal investigation into a Chinese American scientist that later led to a privacy lawsuit.
Fox published the investigative online articles and broadcast reports from February to June 2017. Multiple agencies were investigating the possible foreign military ties of Yanping Chen and the university she founded in the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The articles cited, and included excerpts of, materials from the investigation, such as FBI interviews, Chen’s immigration forms and photos of her in a Chinese military uniform. The six-year investigation was concluded in 2016. No charges were brought against Chen.
In December 2018, Chen sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was shared with then-Fox News correspondent Herridge.
Chen subpoenaed Herridge on June 16, seeking documents and communications from December 2012 through July 2018 concerning the published excerpts from the federal investigation, as well as sufficient information to identify her source. According to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Herridge was also ordered to appear to testify about her reporting and her source or sources.
Fox News and producers Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson — who were also bylined on the articles — received similar subpoenas for documents and testimony. The Tracker has documented each of the subpoenas here.
Upson and Browne ultimately agreed to provide sworn statements in place of documents or testimony, according to court filings. In exchange, Chen agreed to withdraw her subpoenas to Browne and Upson, but continued to pursue the subpoenas to Fox and Herridge, a subsequent court filing confirmed.
Attorney Patrick Philbin filed motions to quash the subpoenas against Herridge and Fox News on Aug. 1, 2022.
As part of the motion, Herridge submitted a declaration confirming that she did not disclose her sources to anyone at Fox and stating that a forced disclosure by the court would have a ripple effect for all national security journalists and whistleblowers.
“Confidential sources, and the information they provide, are essential for informing the public on matters relating to national security, including information relating to the military, espionage, government surveillance, and homeland security,” Herridge wrote. “Fear of exposure will make sources less likely to serve as whistleblowers or otherwise act as confidential sources for such matters.”
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper heard arguments concerning the motions on May 30, 2023. Courthouse News reported that he seemed reluctant to accept Philbin’s argument that the subpoenas posed a threat to First Amendment protections. Philbin did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Cooper did not indicate when he would rule on the motions to quash, according to Courthouse News.
A portion of a subpoena issued to former Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge seeking documents, communications and testimony concerning her reporting on an FBI investigation into a Chinese American scientist's possible foreign military ties.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,[],,,,, 2022-06-23 15:35:30.003895+00:00,2023-10-24 15:23:03.576367+00:00,Documentarian subpoenaed by House Committee investigating Jan. 6 riot,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/documentarian-subpoenaed-by-house-committee-investigating-jan-6-riot/,2023-10-24 15:23:03.464041+00:00,,LegalOrder object (184),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Alex Holder (AJH Media Group),,2022-06-15,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol subpoenaed British documentary filmmaker Alex Holder for footage and testimony on June 15, 2022.
Holder, the founder of AJH Media Group, began working on a documentary about then-President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in September 2020, Politico reported. According to a statement Holder published on Twitter, he had “unparalleled access and exclusive interviews” with the Trump family and then-Vice President Mike Pence at the White House and Mar-A-Lago and behind-the-scenes access on the campaign trail and both before and after the insurrection.
My statement in response to being subpoenaed by Congress: pic.twitter.com/LOY53rEynI
— Alex Holder (@alexjholder) June 21, 2022
Rolling Stone reported that several former officials in Trump’s reelection campaign told the magazine they had no idea that a documentary was being filmed during that period.
The subpoena orders Holder to produce raw footage from Jan. 6, 2021; interviews with Trump, Pence, Trump’s children and his son-in-law; and any footage of discussions of election fraud or election integrity around the 2020 presidential election.
According to Holder’s statement, he turned over footage in compliance with the subpoena on June 21, 2022, and will sit for a deposition on June 23.
“When we began this project in September 2020, we could have never predicted that our work would one day be subpoenaed by Congress,” Holder said. “We have dutifully handed over all the materials the Committee has asked for and we are fully cooperating.”
When reached for comment, the law firm representing Holder directed the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker to Politico’s coverage.
The House Select Committee, chaired by Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, has now issued at least three subpoenas targeting journalists or their records. The committee subpoenaed freelance photojournalist Amy Harris’ phone records in November 2021 and ordered another British documentarian, Nick Quested, to provide footage and testify in early 2022.
Holder’s documentary, “Unprecedented,” is set to be released in three parts this summer, according to his statement.
A portion of the subpoena issued to documentary filmmaker Alex Holder ordering him to produce footage from his coverage of then-President Trump’s reelection campaign and the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol.
",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,Journalist,None,Federal,None,False,None,,"Donald Trump, election, Election 2020",,, 2023-07-06 21:43:52.831150+00:00,2023-07-06 21:43:52.831150+00:00,Subpoena to uncover confidential source dropped following sworn statement,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-to-uncover-confidential-source-dropped-following-sworn-statement/,2023-07-06 21:43:52.725518+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (222), LegalOrder object (223)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Pamela K. Browne (Fox News),,2022-06-14,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"Broadcast journalist Pamela K. Browne was subpoenaed on June 14, 2022, about coverage of a federal investigation into a Chinese American scientist that later led to a privacy lawsuit. The subpoena was ultimately withdrawn.
Fox published the investigative online articles and broadcast reports from February to June 2017. Multiple agencies were investigating the possible foreign military ties of Yanping Chen and the university she founded in the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The articles cited, and included excerpts of, materials from the investigation, such as FBI interviews, Chen’s immigration forms and photos of her in a Chinese military uniform. The six-year investigation was concluded in 2016. No charges were brought against Chen.
In December 2018, Chen sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was shared with then-Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge.
In 2022, Chen subpoenaed Browne, Herridge, Fox Executive Producer Cyd Upson and Fox News for documents and testimony, in an attempt to uncover the confidential source behind the leak. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented each of the subpoenas here.
According to court filings reviewed by the Tracker, Browne and Upson ultimately agreed to provide sworn statements in place of documents or testimony. In exchange, Chen agreed to withdraw her subpoenas to Browne and Upson, but continued to pursue the subpoenas to Fox and Herridge, a subsequent court filing confirmed.
In a June 30 statement, Browne declared that she was never made aware of the identity of Herridge’s confidential source or sources, and has no information that could be used to help identify them. She also confirmed that she left her position at Fox in late 2018, and has no access to the electronic devices, phone or email address that she used to communicate about the reports.
A portion of a sworn statement filed by former Fox News producer Pamela K. Browne in June 2022, about her coverage of an FBI investigation into a Chinese American scientist's possible foreign military ties.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-07-07 21:50:19.558072+00:00,2022-07-07 21:50:19.558072+00:00,St. Joseph journalist deposed after reporting on hospital,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/st-joseph-journalist-deposed-after-reporting-on-hospital/,2022-07-07 21:50:19.502955+00:00,,LegalOrder object (182),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Clayton Anderson (St. Joseph News-Press),,2022-06-02,False,St. Joseph,Missouri (MO),None,None,"A regional medical center in St. Joseph, Missouri, subpoenaed St. Joseph News-Press reporter Clayton Anderson and a news director on June 2, 2022, after Anderson reported on an ongoing worker’s compensation lawsuit against the hospital.
On May 18, the News-Press published Anderson’s article on a discrimination and worker’s compensation lawsuit filed against Heartland Regional Medical Center, operating as Mosaic Life Care, by a former employee who sustained an injury while working as a medical technician and was later terminated from the hospital.
According to Kansas City NPR-affiliate KCUR, Anderson’s reporting referenced a spreadsheet showing the number of employees injured while working at the hospital and were later terminated or let go. A judge sanctioned Mosaic during the trial for discrepancies found in the spreadsheet.
In an email, Anderson told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that about two weeks after publishing the article he received a phone call from Mosaic Life Care asking for reporting materials and recorded interviews with sources. He said he declined to provide any information.
The hospital issued Anderson a subpoena for reporting materials and to sit for a deposition, arguing that Anderson and Steven Booher, the News-Press’ director of news content, received confidential information from the plaintiff’s lawyers. The law firm representing Mosaic Life Center did not respond to a request for comment.
In his deposition on June 14, Anderson answered questions about his motivation for reporting on the lawsuit. According to the transcript, reviewed by the Tracker, he denied having seen a confidential spreadsheet containing the names of former hospital employees.
The plaintiff’s lawyer E.E. Keenan, who was not representing Anderson but was present during the deposition, said he objected to the subpoena. “The news media should be free, under the First Amendment, to do their job without having to go through something like this,” Keenan said.
Anderson told the Tracker that he continues reporting on the lawsuit, and the subpoena has not impacted his objectivity.
“I think, if anything, this has just made me more aware of how business tend to work, but I am not spooked, and it has not impacted my news judgment,” he said.
A portion of the subpoena issued to St. Joseph News-Press reporter Clayton Anderson.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['CARRIED_OUT'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-07-11 19:40:22.102158+00:00,2022-07-11 19:40:22.102158+00:00,St. Joseph News-Press news director deposed after reporting on hospital lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/st-joseph-news-press-news-director-deposed-after-reporting-on-hospital-lawsuit/,2022-07-11 19:40:22.056412+00:00,,LegalOrder object (183),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Steven Booher (St. Joseph News-Press),,2022-06-02,False,St. Joseph,Missouri (MO),None,None,"A regional medical center in St. Joseph, Missouri, subpoenaed St. Joseph News-Press News Director Steven Booher and a reporter on June 2, 2022, after the newspaper reported on an ongoing worker’s compensation lawsuit against the hospital.
On May 18, the News-Press published an article on a discrimination and worker’s compensation lawsuit filed against Heartland Regional Medical Center, operating as Mosaic Life Care, by a former employee who sustained an injury while working as a medical technician and was later terminated from the hospital.
According to Kansas City NPR-affiliate KCUR, the New-Press’ reporting referenced a spreadsheet showing the number of employees injured while working at the hospital and were later terminated or let go. A judge sanctioned Mosaic during the trial for discrepancies found in the spreadsheet.
The hospital issued Booher a subpoena for reporting materials and to sit for a deposition, arguing that Booher and Clayton Anderson, the News-Press reporter who wrote the article, received confidential information from the plaintiff’s lawyers. In his deposition on June 14, Booher refused to produce unpublished and unaired materials gathered while reporting on the lawsuit. According to the transcript, reviewed by the Tracker, he said the News-Press would consider producing the materials if ordered to by a judge. Neither Booher nor the lawyers representing Mosaic Life Center responded to requests for comment.
The plaintiff’s lawyer E.E. Keenan, who was not representing Booher but was present during the deposition, asked Booher if subpoenas issued to reporters had the potential to have a chilling effect on journalism.
“It would. It would definitely have that effect, and most likely it would affect our news judgment about stories that we do cover, and eventually it would have a detrimental effect on our business,” Booher said in the deposition.
Keenan objected to the subpoenas during the depositions. “The news media should be free, under the First Amendment, to do their job without having to go through something like this,” he said.
A Minnesota District judge quashed a subpoena on June 20, 2022, that sought testimony from KARE 11 News reporter Lou Raguse in an upcoming murder trial in Minneapolis.
According to the Star Tribune, Dan Allard, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, filed a motion to compel Raguse to testify during the trial of Jamal Smith. Smith is accused of fatally shooting a man after an altercation on a Minneapolis highway.
Raguse did not respond to a request for comment, but his attorney, Leita Walker, confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker by email that the subpoena was initially served on or around May 30, 2022. Walker said that prosecutors filed a motion to compel after being notified that the law required them to first apply to the court before subpoenaing a journalist.
According to the Star Tribune, Raguse recorded a video interview with Smith while he was in jail in April 2022, where Smith denied having fired the fatal shot. Allard argued that Raguse’s testimony could place Smith in the vehicle during the shooting.
During a hearing on the motion, Walker argued that the prosecutor misstated or ignored law protecting journalists, and that reporters could not be compelled to reveal confidential sources or information under Minnesota state law.
Hennepin County Judge Nicole Engisch sided with Raguse in denying the motion to compel, quashing the subpoena. According to the Star Tribune, Engisch’s six-page order stated, “The court does not find that the state’s argument here outweighs Mr. Raguse’s First Amendment interest and legal privilege to avoid being compelled to testify on unpublished information gathered as part of his work as a journalist.”
An executive producer for Fox News, Cyd Upson, was subpoenaed on May 23, 2022, about coverage of a federal investigation into a Chinese American scientist that later led to a privacy lawsuit. The subpoena was ultimately withdrawn.
Fox published the investigative online articles and broadcast reports from February to June 2017. Multiple agencies were investigating the possible foreign military ties of Yanping Chen and the university she founded in the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The articles cited, and included excerpts of, materials from the investigation, such as FBI interviews, Chen’s immigration forms and photos of her in a Chinese military uniform. The six-year investigation was concluded in 2016. No charges were brought against Chen.
In December 2018, Chen sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was shared with Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge.
In 2022, Chen subpoenaed Upson, Herridge, then-Senior Executive Producer Pamela K. Browne and Fox News for documents and testimony, in an attempt to uncover the confidential source behind the leak. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented each of the subpoenas here.
According to court filings reviewed by the Tracker, Upson and Browne agreed to provide sworn statements in place of documents or testimony. In exchange, Chen agreed to withdraw her subpoenas to Browne and Upson, but continued to pursue those sent to Fox and Herridge, a subsequent court filing confirmed.
In a June 30 statement, Upson declared that she was never made aware of the identity of Herridge’s confidential source or sources, and has no information that could be used to help identify them.
A portion of a sworn statement filed by Fox News Senior Producer Cyd Upson in June 2022, about her coverage of an FBI investigation into a Chinese American scientist's possible foreign military ties.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-07-06 21:55:34.787090+00:00,2023-08-02 21:26:38.220091+00:00,"Fox News subpoenaed to reveal confidential source, editorial process",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/fox-news-subpoenaed-to-reveal-confidential-source-editorial-process/,2023-08-02 21:26:37.900445+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (228), LegalOrder object (229)",(2023-08-01 17:13:00+00:00) Subpoenas to Fox News quashed while reporter must testify on confidential source,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2022-05-19,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"Fox News was subpoenaed in May 2022, about coverage of a federal investigation into a Chinese American scientist that later led to a privacy lawsuit.
The network published the investigative online articles and broadcast reports from February to June 2017. Multiple agencies were investigating the possible foreign military ties of Yanping Chen and the university she founded in the Washington, D.C., metro area.
The articles cited, and included excerpts of, materials from the investigation, such as FBI interviews, Chen’s immigration forms and photos of her in a Chinese military uniform. The six-year investigation was concluded in 2016. No charges were brought against Chen.
In December 2018, Chen sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was shared with Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge.
Chen subpoenaed Fox News on May 19, 2022, seeking documents and communications from December 2012 through July 2018 concerning the published excerpts from the federal investigation, as well as information sufficient to identify Herridge’s source. A representative from Fox was also ordered to appear to testify via Zoom about the reporting and the network’s editorial review processes.
Over the next month, Chen also subpoenaed Herridge and producers Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson, who shared bylines on the articles. The Tracker has documented each of the subpoenas here.
Upson and Browne ultimately agreed to provide sworn statements in place of documents or testimony, according to court filings. In exchange, Chen agreed to withdraw her subpoenas to Browne and Upson, but continued to pursue the subpoenas to Fox and Herridge, a subsequent court filing confirmed.
Attorney Patrick Philbin — who is representing all of the Fox News defendants — filed motions to quash the latter two subpoenas on Aug. 1, 2022.
“The public interest in First Amendment protections that promote the functioning of a free press is at its height in a case like this involving reporting on issues of national security,” Philbin wrote. “Without confidential sources, the press could not uncover information vital for informing the public — especially about the inner workings of government.”
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper heard arguments concerning the motions on May 30, 2023. Courthouse News reported that he seemed reluctant to accept Philbin’s argument that the subpoenas posed a threat to First Amendment protections. Philbin did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Cooper did not indicate when he would rule on the motions to quash, according to Courthouse News.
A portion of the subpoena issued to Fox News on May 19, 2022, seeking documents, communications and testimony concerning the network’s coverage of an FBI investigation into a Chinese American scientist's possible foreign military ties.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,Fox News,,,, 2022-05-11 18:21:25.235862+00:00,2022-05-11 18:21:25.235862+00:00,Subpoena seeking testimony from Oregon independent journalist dropped,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-seeking-testimony-from-oregon-independent-journalist-dropped/,2022-05-11 18:21:25.187376+00:00,,LegalOrder object (179),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Hannah Merzbach (Independent),,2022-05-05,False,Bend,Oregon (OR),44.05817,-121.31531,"The Deschutes County District Attorney in Bend, Oregon, issued a subpoena to independent journalist Hanna Merzbach on May 5, 2022, seeking testimony for an ongoing criminal case against a local rock climber. The subpoena was dropped the next day.
In an email to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Merzbach said the subpoena demanded she testify as a witness during a three-day criminal trial for local climber Shawn Ian Snyder. Merzbach interviewed Snyder for a September 2020 article about rock climbing regulations at Smith Rock State Park in Terrebonne, Oregon.
When the DA’s office delivers you a subpoena at the local coffee shop to testify about a source… pic.twitter.com/jpdUh66Hu9
— Hanna Merzbach (@HannaMerzbach) May 5, 2022
Before this trial, Snyder had been accused of removing climbing bolts in Yosemite State Park and was arrested and banned for removing climbing ropes and gear from Smith Rock, which he said “puts a stain on a beautiful, natural place.”
According to Merzbach, the DA’s office wanted her to testify on a specific quote attributed to Snyder in her article. In the quote, he admitted that while unacceptable, he had “determined that physical threats and actions are the only methods that work” when communicating with other climbers about installing climbing equipment in the park.
Merzbach told the Tracker that the subpoena was dropped on May 6 after lawyers from the Oregon chapter of the Reporters Committee for Freedom Press intervened. RCFP is a member of the Tracker’s advisory board.
In a tweet referring to the incident, Ellen Osoinach of RCFP wrote, “Fact. Journalists should never have to testify against sources they worked to develop relationships of trust with.”
The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol subpoenaed British documentary filmmaker Nick Quested for footage and testimony in mid-2022, according to The New York Times.
CNN reported that Quested, executive director and owner of Goldcrest Films, was embedded with the Proud Boys, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group, for months leading up to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Leaders of the Proud Boys were involved in the early clashes at the Capitol and five of them have been charged with seditious conspiracy.
In an interview with CNN, Quested said, “I spoke to the authorities in an interview beforehand, but when they were using my work in the way that they did, I felt it was only appropriate for them to subpoena me.”
Quested told CNN that recognizing that he had likely filmed numerous crimes being committed, he decided to turn the footage over to the FBI.
“I didn’t feel there was any journalistic jeopardy giving that to authorities,” Quested said.
Quested told Politico that he sat for an hours-long deposition on April 5, 2022. The documentarian also mentioned a possible second subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Quested, who gave live testimony at a hearing on June 9, did not respond to requests for additional information on when the subpoena was issued or what materials were requested.
The House Select Committee, established on June 30 chaired by democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, has now issued at least three subpoenas targeting journalists or their records. The committee subpoenaed freelance photojournalist Amy Harris’ phone records in November 2021 and ordered another British documentarian, Alex Holder, to provide footage and testify before the committee on June 15, 2022.
Nick Quested, a documentary filmmaker, testifies on June 9, 2022, before the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol. Quested said he was speaking in compliance with a subpoena.
",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,Journalist,None,Federal,None,False,None,,"Donald Trump, election, Election 2020, white nationalism",,, 2022-05-26 19:16:22.127875+00:00,2023-06-28 19:02:58.264030+00:00,Subpoena withdrawn for former NYT reporter in trial of Clinton campaign lawyer,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/dc_sussmann-trial_lichtblau_subpoena_04-2022/,2023-06-28 19:02:58.087994+00:00,,LegalOrder object (176),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Eric Lichtblau (The New York Times),,2022-04-01,True,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"As part of a trial involving a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer, a subpoena demanding testimony from a former New York Times reporter was submitted in April 2022 then withdrawn on May 24, legal counsel for the Times confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an email.
According to the Times, the subpoena called for Eric Lichtblau to testify in the trial of Michael Sussmann, who was charged with making false statements to the FBI in 2016 in his role as a Clinton campaign attorney.
Prosecutors say that Sussmann met with former FBI General Counsel James Baker and shared information about data that allegedly linked the Trump Organization to Alfa Bank, a Russian bank affiliated with the Kremlin.
Prosecutors say Sussmann wanted to prompt an FBI investigation into the connection so that journalists could report on it. Sussmann’s defense team says he approached the FBI to notify them that an article was already underway.
Lichtblau, then a reporter for the Times, co-authored an article in October 2013, six weeks after Sussmann met with the FBI, noting that officials had not been able to confirm a clear link between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.
Fox News reported that before the defense lawyers withdrew the subpoena, Lichtblau had initially agreed to testify during the trial but then filed a protective order to limit testimony to only interactions between him and Sussmann and bar any questions about other sources.
According to the Times, Lichtblau’s testimony could have “shed light on what he told Mr. Sussmann regarding how soon an article might be published before he sought the F.B.I. meeting.”
The City of Minneapolis issued Minnesota Reformer Deputy Editor Max Nesterak a subpoena on March 18, 2022, in connection with a pending lawsuit against the city and multiple law enforcement officials.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Nesterak was one of three journalists ordered to produce a broad range of materials and communications relating to their coverage of protests following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020. The subpoenas were filed in connection with an excessive use of force lawsuit filed by freelance photojournalist Linda Tirado, who was permanently blinded in one eye after police shot her with a crowd-control munition on May 29.
Nesterak, who declined to comment on advice from counsel, confirmed on Twitter that he was one of the journalists served with a subpoena.
In a subsequent post, Nesterak included a photo of the subpoena, which orders him to bring “all videos, photographs, recordings, communications, documents, or other items in your possession (including social media posts) that are related to you being hit in the chest as stated in your tweet from 11:32 p.m. on May 27, 2020.” The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented that incident here.
And I got hit in the chest by a rubber bullet from police. Covered me in dust that’s been making me cough for a half hour. I’m home now. pic.twitter.com/sYShFOjvQO
— Max Nesterak (@maxnesterak) May 28, 2020
The subpoena also orders Nesterak to produce any images or documents pertaining to his coverage of the protests from May 26-31, 2020, and any communications he may have had with Tirado or her legal counsel, excepting anything that he has “a good faith basis to assert is protected by a legally recognized journalistic privilege.”
According to MPR News, the city issued similar subpoenas to Andy Mannix of the Star Tribune and Jared Goyette, who was a freelance journalist during the protests and now works for Fox 9.
The City Attorney’s Office shared a statement with the Tracker that said the individuals subpoenaed were identified by Tirado as having relevant information.
“It is incumbent upon the City Attorney’s Office, as it would be any attorney, to obtain information relevant to their client’s case, whether or not the individuals possessing that information happen to be journalists.”
In a statement shared with the Tracker, Reformer Editor-in-Chief J. Patrick Coolican said the outlet intends to fight the subpoena.
“This ham-handed effort to intimidate journalists with a burdensome legal action will not achieve its intended effect,” Coolican said. “Quite the contrary. We will continue to aggressively pursue our reporting, and protect our newsgathering rights from interference by government officials.”
The City of Minneapolis issued Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Andy Mannix a subpoena on March 18, 2022, in connection with a pending lawsuit against the city and multiple law enforcement officials.
The Star Tribune reported that Mannix was one of three journalists ordered to produce a broad range of materials and communications relating to their coverage of protests following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020. The subpoenas were filed in connection with an excessive use of force lawsuit filed by freelance photojournalist Linda Tirado, who was permanently blinded in one eye after police shot her with a crowd-control munition on May 29.
Mannix declined to comment on advice from counsel.
According to the Star Tribune, the subpoenas order the journalists to produce any images or documents pertaining to their coverage of the protests from May 26-31, 2020, and any communications they may have had with Tirado or her legal counsel, excepting anything that he has “a good faith basis to assert is protected by a legally recognized journalistic privilege.” The journalists were also ordered to appear for depositions via Zoom videoconferencing in late March.
Mannix was also asked for materials related to his thigh injury from a projectile that struck him while he was covering protests on May 26, 2020, the day after Floyd’s death. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documented that incident here.
I Was just shot with this in the thigh. pic.twitter.com/igcJ3e7iQ4
— Andy Mannix (@AndrewMannix) May 27, 2020
According to MPR News, the city issued similar subpoenas to Max Nesterak of the Minnesota Reformer and Jared Goyette, who was a freelance journalist during the protests and now works for Fox 9.
In a statement shared with the Tracker, the City Attorney’s Office said: “The individuals subpoenaed were identified by Plaintiff Linda Tirado as having information relevant to her claims.
“It is incumbent upon the City Attorney’s Office, as it would be any attorney, to obtain information relevant to their client’s case, whether or not the individuals possessing that information happen to be journalists.”
Suki Dardarian, senior managing editor and vice president of the Star Tribune, said in a statement to the outlet, “We are reviewing the issue, but we expect to challenge the subpoena.”
A portion of the subpoena issued to Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Andy Mannix, who was struck with a crowd-control munition while covering protests in Minnesota in May 2020.
",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,,"Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter 1 year, Black Lives Matter 2020, protest",,, 2022-03-23 14:53:02.849522+00:00,2023-06-29 16:18:20.854484+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed in connection with blinded photojournalist’s lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-in-connection-with-blinded-photojournalists-lawsuit/,2023-06-29 16:18:20.740171+00:00,,LegalOrder object (174),(2022-06-02 10:33:00+00:00) Subpoenas dropped following settlement in blinded photojournalist’s lawsuit,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Jared Goyette (Freelance),,2022-03-18,False,Minneapolis,Minnesota (MN),44.97997,-93.26384,"The City of Minneapolis issued journalist Jared Goyette a subpoena on March 18, 2022, in connection with a pending lawsuit against the city and multiple law enforcement officials.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that three journalists were ordered to produce a broad range of materials and communications relating to their coverage of protests following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020. The subpoenas were filed in connection with an excessive use of force lawsuit filed by freelance photojournalist Linda Tirado, who was permanently blinded in one eye after police shot her with a crowd-control munition on May 29.
Goyette, who was a freelance journalist at the time and now works for Fox 9, declined to comment further than confirming to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he was one of the three journalists subpoenaed. He is also a plaintiff in a separate class-action suit against the city and law enforcement, which recently reached a partial settlement with Minnesota State Patrol.
According to the Star Tribune, the subpoenas order the journalists to produce any images or documents pertaining to their coverage of the protests from May 26-31, 2020, and any communications they may have had with Tirado or her legal counsel, excepting anything that he has “a good faith basis to assert is protected by a legally recognized journalistic privilege.” The journalists were also ordered to appear for depositions via Zoom videoconferencing in late March.
The journalists were each also asked for materials related to their own injuries from projectiles that struck them while covering the protests sparked by Floyd’s death. Goyette was struck in the eye with a crowd-control munition while covering protests on May 27. The Tracker has documented that incident here.
I got hit in the eye and then tear gassed. pic.twitter.com/wXm1P5yPKb
— Jared Goyette (@JaredGoyette) May 27, 2020
According to MPR News, the city issued similar subpoenas to Andy Mannix of the Star Tribune and Max Nesterak of the Minnesota Reformer.
In a statement shared with the Tracker, the City Attorney’s Office said: “The individuals subpoenaed were identified by Plaintiff Linda Tirado as having information relevant to her claims.
“It is incumbent upon the City Attorney’s Office, as it would be any attorney, to obtain information relevant to their client’s case, whether or not the individuals possessing that information happen to be journalists.”
A Massachusetts Superior Court judge said during a Sept. 22, 2022, hearing that she would reexamine her previous decision forcing a Berkshire Eagle editor to turnover his confidential reporting notes as part of a clergy abuse lawsuit.
According to the Eagle, Larry Parnass, managing editor for innovation at the Berkshire Eagle, published more than a dozen news stories since 2019 on sexual abuse allegation cover-ups involving the Springfield Diocese. As part of a lawsuit, the diocese subpoenaed Parnass this March, seeking his testimony and a broad array of reporting materials it said were needed to verify the consistency of claims made to investigators and a review board. Attorneys for the Eagle objected to the order, arguing that turning over the materials would compromise a confidential source.
Parnass and the Eagles’ attorney, Jeffrey Pyle, did not respond to requests for comment from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
In a ruling this summer, Judge Karin L. Goodwin upheld the subpoena but narrowed the scope to materials she believed did not include identifying information of confidential sources.
During the September 2022 hearing, Pyle argued the diocese’s requests for information did not overcome the First Amendment and was not significant enough to violate a reporter’s confidential relationship with a source, the Eagle reported.
“This story would never have been published by The Berkshire Eagle had not Mr. Parnass been able to ensure confidential sources of his promise not to reveal their identities, and in that respect, this case is much like many other cases that have involved award-winning, societally important journalism,” Pyle said during the hearing. “The stakes are very high here.”
Goodwin said she would reexamine her previous ruling allowing the subpoena to move forward in part. She did not say when she would release that decision.
On May 5, 2022, a United States District Court judge quashed a subpoena issued to ABC News seeking footage, documents and journalist communications as part of a criminal lawsuit involving a cast member from the television show "The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City."
According to court documents, ABC News aired a documentary featuring cast member Jennifer Shah and her alleged involvement in a telemarketing fraud scheme. Shah issued a subpoena to ABC News on Feb. 11, 2022, requesting seven categories of documents, including all video footage, documents, interviewer notes and identification of all government agents and members of the prosecution who provided the news outlet with information.
According to court documents, Eileen Murphy, the senior editorial producer of the documentary, said thousands of documents and materials were collected as part of the reporting process. ABC News staffers also interviewed non-confidential and confidential sources but did not interview any prosecutors involved in the case.
Lawyers for ABC News filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Feb. 25, 2022, stating the information requested was protected under journalists' privilege and was "unreasonable or oppressive" under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17.
U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein heard oral arguments on April 25. In granting the motion to quash on May 5, Stein wrote that the request did not overcome journalistic privilege and did not meet the requirements set out in United States v. Nixon, that materials must be “relevant, specifically identified, admissible, and not otherwise procurable by due diligence."
A North Dakota police investigator seized a cellphone belonging to Tom Simon, a Williston-based reporter for Coyote Radio 98.5 and Williston Trending Topics News Radio Live, during a school board meeting on Jan. 10, 2022. The phone was ultimately returned.
Simon told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he had been covering the departure of the school district’s former superintendent since October 2021. Multiple individuals contacted Simon with details from a closed executive session of the school board. In the wake of his reporting, Williston police initiated an investigation at the behest of the school board president and enlisted the help of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation to identify Simon’s sources.
The BCI obtained a search warrant for Simon’s cellphone on Jan. 4 but waited six days — until the next school board meeting — to execute it. Simon told the Tracker that BCI police investigator Charissa Remus approached him during the Jan. 10 meeting and asked him to come with her to answer some questions.
While Remus asked him to identify his sources, Simon said a second agent seized his cellphone from the table where he had left it. Remus then presented Simon a copy of the signed search warrant and asked him to tell her the device’s passcode. Simon refused to identify his sources but provided the passcode, not knowing whether he had the right to refuse.
Under the state’s shield law, police cannot seize a journalist’s work product without a court hearing to determine if the “failure of disclosure of such evidence will cause a miscarriage of justice.” No such hearing was held in Simon’s case.
The Associated Press reported that North Dakota Newspaper Association Attorney Jack McDonald contacted state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem about the seizure the following day, and Stenehjem immediately ordered that the phone be returned to Simon.
According to documents reviewed by the Tracker, Simon’s phone was returned to him just before 3 p.m. on Jan. 11 without having been searched or its contents downloaded. Simon’s attorney, Kevin Chapman, told the Tracker they are working with a computer expert to confirm whether the phone’s contents were accessed while it was in custody.
“Having it returned quickly does not solve the problem,” Simon told the Tracker. “Once the veil of secrecy is pierced, the message to the sources or future sources is that law enforcement can still find out who they are, and that message is difficult to stomach.”
Simon said he was particularly concerned by the decision to hold off serving the warrant until it could be done in front of his presumed sources in order to intimidate them.
Judge Benjamen Johnson also signed a search warrant sent to Verizon Wireless for Simon’s phone records, which the Tracker documented here. On Jan. 11, Remus, the BCI agent, wrote a letter to Verizon telling them to “PLEASE DISREGARD IMMEDIATELY.” The police investigation has since been closed.
Stenehjem told the AP that some people involved in the chain of events did not know that Simon was protected by the shield law and expressed regret over the mistake.
In a statement shared with the Tracker, Stenhjem said, “This office reviewed the matter and determined that the phone was lawfully taken pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a judge.
“The attorney general advised the agent that in light of a state statute that requires a further court warrant to view the contents of the phone in cases like this.”
A spokesperson for Stenehjem’s office told Fargo-based outlet InForum that moving forward all current and future BCI agents will receive training on the state’s shield law and it will be incorporated into the curriculum at the Law Enforcement Training Academy.
Chapman told the Tracker he is researching potential civil rights claims but said they have not decided if or when they will file a lawsuit.
“There has to be a freedom of the press. Reporters should be able to feel free to go get the news and to do investigative journalism without law enforcement breathing down their necks and then pressuring them for their sources,” Chapman said. “This is a perfect example of overreaching on behalf of law enforcement into the rights of private citizens and it simply cannot stand.”
A portion of the search warrant for the cellphone belonging to radio reporter Tom Simon, who was reporting on a school board’s handling of the departure of the district’s former superintendent.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in full,False,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2022-01-26 15:13:32.007244+00:00,2022-11-08 20:38:34.280404+00:00,Search warrant issued for North Dakota reporter’s phone records amid police investigation,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/search-warrant-issued-for-north-dakota-reporters-phone-records-amid-police-investigation/,2022-11-08 20:38:34.209928+00:00,,LegalOrder object (167),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Tom Simon (KXWI-FM),,2022-01-04,False,Williston,North Dakota (ND),48.14697,-103.61797,"A North Dakota police investigator obtained a search warrant for the phone records of Tom Simon, a Williston-based reporter for Coyote Radio 98.5 and Williston Trending Topics News Radio Live, on Jan. 4, 2022.
The Associated Press reported that Simon was covering a series of closed-door meetings about the school board’s handling of the departure of the district’s former superintendent. Simon told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that multiple individuals contacted him with details from an executive session of the school board. In the wake of his reporting, Williston police initiated an investigation at the behest of the school board president and enlisted the help of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation to identify Simon’s sources.
Judge Benjamen Johnson signed a search warrant for the seizure of Simon’s cellphone and a second warrant issued to Verizon Wireless for the reporter’s cellphone records on Jan. 4. Both warrants were reviewed by the Tracker.
During a school board meeting on Jan. 10, BCI agents approached Simon, demanded that he identify his sources, presented him with the signed search warrant and confiscated his cellphone. The Tracker has documented that seizure here.
Under the state’s shield law, police cannot seize a journalist’s work product without a court hearing to determine if the “failure of disclosure of such evidence will cause a miscarriage of justice.” No such hearing was held in Simon’s case.
The AP reported that North Dakota Newspaper Association Attorney Jack McDonald contacted state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem about the seizure the following morning, and Stenehjem immediately ordered the phone returned. That same day, BCI police investigator Charissa Remus wrote a letter to Verizon telling the communications company to “PLEASE DISREGARD IMMEDIATELY.” The police investigation has since been closed.
Stenehjem told the AP that some people involved in the chain of events did not know that Simon was protected by the shield law and expressed regret over the mistake.
In a statement shared with the Tracker, Stenhjem said, “This office reviewed the matter and determined that the phone was lawfully taken pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a judge.
“The attorney general advised the agent that in light of a state statute that requires a further court warrant to view the contents of the phone in cases like this.”
A spokesperson for Stenehjem’s office told Fargo-based outlet InForum that moving forward all current and future BCI agents will receive training on the state’s shield law and it will be incorporated into the curriculum at the Law Enforcement Training Academy.
Simon’s attorney, Kevin Chapman, told the Tracker he is researching potential civil rights claims but said they have not decided if or when they will file a lawsuit.
“There has to be a freedom of the press. Reporters should be able to feel free to go get the news and to do investigative journalism without law enforcement breathing down their necks and then pressuring them for their sources,” Chapman said. “This is a perfect example of overreaching on behalf of law enforcement into the rights of private citizens and it simply cannot stand.”
A portion of the search warrant issued to Verizon for phone records belonging to radio reporter Tom Simon, who was reporting on a school board’s handling of the departure of the district’s former superintendent.zf
",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'],Verizon Wireless,telecom company,Third-party,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-01-06 15:20:11.838984+00:00,2023-11-03 18:09:29.796592+00:00,"Reporter arrested, phone confiscated while covering NC homeless camp eviction",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-arrested-phone-confiscated-while-covering-nc-homeless-camp-eviction/,2023-11-03 18:09:29.594032+00:00,trespassing (convicted as of 2023-06-16),LegalOrder object (256),"(2023-06-16 14:29:00+00:00) Asheville reporter convicted of trespassing following jury trial, (2023-04-19 16:26:00+00:00) Reporters convicted on trespassing charges, immediately appealed for jury trial, (2022-03-11 09:55:00+00:00) Police return phone, belongings to reporter after obtaining search warrant, (2023-05-03 12:43:00+00:00) Asheville reporter learns of cellphone search warrant, park ban in lead up to jury trial","Arrest/Criminal Charge, Equipment Search or Seizure, Subpoena/Legal Order",,cellphone: count of 1,,Matilda Bliss (The Asheville Blade),,2021-12-25,False,Asheville,North Carolina (NC),35.60095,-82.55402,"Asheville Blade reporter Matilda Bliss was arrested alongside a colleague while covering a police eviction of a homeless encampment in Asheville, North Carolina, on Dec. 25, 2021.
Bliss, whose pronouns are she/they, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker she had been at Aston Park multiple times throughout the day but had left to run an errand at approximately 9 p.m. Both Bliss and Blade reporter Veronica Coit returned to the park a little before 10 p.m. after receiving texts about a growing police force gathering at the park. A small encampment in the park was the latest focus of ongoing city efforts to clear Asheville’s homeless populations out of public areas, according to the Asheville Citizen Times.
As officers directed everyone in the camp to “move on” under threat of arrest, Coit and Bliss documented their actions from a distance, Bliss told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. The Blade reported that one of the officers then pointed toward Coit and said, “[They’re] taking pictures.”
Five officers then advanced toward Coit and placed them under arrest. Several officers then told Bliss to immediately leave the park or face arrest. Bliss repeatedly identified as a member of the press before she, too, was arrested.
The Blade reported that Bliss was wearing a press badge issued by the outlet at the time of her arrest.
Asheville police just arrested Blade reporters @matilda_bliss and Veronica Coit. Both were on the ground covering the events at Aston Park, displaying press id #avlnews #avlgov
— Asheville Blade (@AvlBlade) December 26, 2021
“According to the last things [Bliss and Coit] observed, and from sources they later spoke with, APD then grew even more violent, dragging campers out of tents and arresting them,” the Blade reported. “Our journalists were clearly targeted first to remove those who could quickly bring the brutality that followed to the public’s attention.”
Coit and Bliss were each charged with second degree trespassing, which carries a penalty of up to 20 days in jail and a $200 fine.
Blade founder and editor David Forbes told the Tracker that while Coit was released shortly after midnight, Bliss was left handcuffed in a police car for more than two hours and was the last person released from custody. Forbes said that to the best of the journalists’ knowledge, Bliss was the only arrestee whose phone was confiscated.
Bliss told the Tracker that when she was released at approximately 1:50 a.m. on the 26th, officers did not return her belongings, stating that they are being held as evidence and that it’s up to the district attorney to approve their release. The Asheville Police Department did not return a call requesting comment.
The Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the arrests in a statement on Twitter a few days after the incident:
“Authorities in #Asheville, NC should drop all charges against @AvlBlade reporters Veronica Coit and @matilda_bliss, who were arrested on December 25. We are deeply concerned that @AshevillePolice interfered with their reporting, and unnecessarily confiscated Bliss's phone.”
Forbes told the Tracker that the charges against Bliss and Coit are still pending and they both have hearings scheduled for March 8, 2022.
“It was a hard experience but also I’m not going to back down either,” Bliss told the Tracker. “That’s the only way that this doesn’t happen to other people.”
While documenting police engaging in a sweep of a homeless encampment in Asheville, North Carolina, on Dec. 25, 2021, two Asheville Blade journalists were arrested and charged with trespassing.
",arrested and released,Asheville Police Department,2021-12-26,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,None,,encampment,,, 2022-02-25 16:07:46.913407+00:00,2023-06-29 16:20:21.608387+00:00,Podcast producers release unaired materials after subpoena upheld,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/podcast-producers-release-unaired-materials-after-subpoena-upheld/,2023-06-29 16:20:21.495787+00:00,,LegalOrder object (166),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2021-12-22,False,San Diego,California (CA),32.71571,-117.16472,"After a San Diego federal judge upheld a subpoena seeking unpublished source material, the podcast producers and creators chose to instead publicly release hours of unaired interviews with a military contractor central to a massive U.S. Navy bribery scandal on Dec. 22, 2021.
U.S. District Court Judge Janis Sammartino authorized attorneys for six naval officers charged with criminal bribery to subpoena Audiation, the company that produced the podcast, for all recordings collected while creating “Fat Leonard” on Nov. 18, 2021. The recordings involved Leonard Glenn Francis, a military contractor accused of overcharging the Navy of at least $35 million and bribing uniformed naval officers in one of the worst corruption scandals in Navy history.
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sammartino denied a motion to quash the subpoena made by Project Brazen, the creator of the podcast, on Dec. 21. Sammartino stated that the naval officers’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights superseded the producers’ First Amendment rights.
“Francis’ believability as a witness will be a crucial determination for the jury as he is the orchestrator and alleged briber of each of the defendants and was closely connected with all of the activities charged in the indictment,” Sammartino wrote in her decision.
Rather than releasing the material to the lawyers, Audiation and Project Brazen released 20 hours of unedited interviews with Francis.
Today we are making public raw tapes of my interviews with Leonard Francis, the basis of our hit podcast Fat Leonard. We are doing this rather than just handing these tapes to defense lawyers of Navy officers who sought them by subpoena. Here’s a thread about the 1st Amendment.
— Tom Wright (@TomWrightAsia) December 23, 2021
“We disagree with this ruling and believe it sets a bad precedent for media freedom in the U.S.,” Tom Wright, the co-founder of Project Brazen, wrote on Twitter when announcing the release of the recordings. “Our job is to inform the public, as we have done about this huge Navy corruption scandal and the ensuing coverup.”
Independent journalist Justin Pulliam was arrested and his equipment seized while filming a mental health check by Fort Bend County Sheriff’s deputies in Damon, Texas, on Dec. 21, 2021. He was charged with interference with public duties but the initial proceedings ended in a mistrial in March 2023. In the interim, Pulliam filed a federal lawsuit against the county.
Pulliam lives in Fort Bend County near Houston and independently reports on local government and law enforcement for his social media channels, including on YouTube and Facebook. According to his lawsuit, Pulliam followed officers to a remote corner of the county where they were conducting a wellness check on a man whose case Pulliam had been following for several years.
“Justin had recorded previous [sheriff’s office] interactions with the mentally ill man and believed officers had a history of unnecessarily escalating their responses to him,” the lawsuit stated.
Pulliam began filming from a gas station located approximately 130 feet from the man’s home after receiving permission from his mother, according to his footage from the incident. At some point, a deputy informed the other officers via radio that Pulliam had arrived, identifying him by name and as a “local journalist,” Pulliam’s lawsuit stated.
Moments after two mental health advocates arrived at the scene, a deputy approached and first directed only Pulliam and then the advocates to go across the street. Pulliam began walking toward the street, but turned to resume filming when the advocates began speaking to the officer.
Seconds later, the officer again directed Pulliam to leave; Pulliam responded that he had a right to be there as long as the other bystanders were permitted to remain. As the officer began walking toward him while counting down from five, Pulliam’s footage shows him backing up further until the officer reached him and placed him under arrest.
During the booking process, Sheriff Eric Fagan and the chief deputy took Pulliam into a room and attempted to question him, according to his lawsuit. When he refused to speak without an attorney, both reportedly became agitated and indicated that the booking process would continue, according to the lawsuit.
Pulliam was released after several hours once his $500 bail was posted. His equipment — which included a hand-held camera, body camera and cellphone — remained in police custody. The majority of the equipment was returned on Jan. 7, 2022, though the sheriff’s office continued to hold his body camera, memory cards and cellphone.
A week later, officers obtained search warrants for the memory cards and body camera, arguing that they held evidence of Pulliam’s alleged interference with public duties. A grand jury indicted Pulliam on May 16, 2022.
Pulliam’s case went to trial on March 28, 2023, according to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. It was ruled a mistrial after one of the six jurors held that Pulliam should be convicted while the other jurors voted to acquit, confirmed Christie Hebert, one of the attorneys at the public interest law firm Institute for Justice representing Pulliam in his federal suit.
Wesley Wittig, second assistant district attorney for Fort Bend County, told the Tracker that no new trial date has been requested.
For Pulliam, it has been a life-altering experience. “It’s not just the arrest and one police officer,” Pulliam told the Tracker in July 2023. “It’s like the whole system is out to get you. And so that, taken as a whole, is very chilling. It makes me scared to really do much of any filming in this county.”
The Institute for Justice filed the civil rights lawsuit on Pulliam’s behalf on Dec. 5, 2022, against the county, Sheriff Fagan and four others in the sheriff’s office. The suit alleges violations of Pulliam’s First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights by arresting him and seizing his equipment, as well as by barring him from one of the sheriff’s press conferences in July 2021.
On June 29, 2023, District Judge David Hittner denied the county’s motion to dismiss the majority of Pulliam’s claims. Hittner ruled that Pulliam had sufficiently argued that he had been singled out for exercising his First Amendment rights and that the officers are not protected by qualified immunity at this time.
The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment when reached in July 2023, citing the ongoing litigation.
Hebert said in a statement following the ruling that Hittner recognized the gravity of Pulliam’s claims.
“The heart of the First Amendment is the right to speak out about government, and Fort Bend County does not get to pick and choose who will cover their activities,” Hebert said.
Hebert told the Tracker that the case is tentatively scheduled to go to trial in early 2024.
Independent journalist Justin Pulliam was arrested by a Fort Bend County Sheriff’s deputy while documenting a mental health call on Dec. 21, 2021. A year later, Pulliam filed a civil rights lawsuit against the sheriff’s office.
",arrested and released,Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office,None,None,False,4:22-cv-04210,['ONGOING'],Civil,returned in part,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2022-09-07 19:07:07.904675+00:00,2023-06-29 16:20:50.491186+00:00,Former BuzzFeed reporter ordered to submit documents in lawsuit against Kevin Spacey,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-buzzfeed-reporter-ordered-to-submit-documents-in-lawsuit-against-kevin-spacey/,2023-06-29 16:20:50.387797+00:00,,LegalOrder object (165),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Adam Vary (BuzzFeed News),,2021-12-06,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Former BuzzFeed News reporter Adam B. Vary was subpoenaed for documents and materials on Dec. 6, 2021, as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit against actor Kevin Spacey. On Aug. 9, 2022, a district judge granted a motion to compel Vary to partially comply with the order.
According to a September 2020 civil complaint, Anthony Rapp was a 14-year-old actor in a Broadway play in 1986 when Spacey befriended him and invited him to a party at his New York City apartment, where Rapp claims Spacey sexually abused him.
Rapp approached journalist Vary, who was also a long-time friend, in 2017 about his claims against Spacey. Vary then wrote an article about the allegations published by BuzzFeed in late October 2017.
Vary complied with a Nov. 4, 2021 subpoena requesting a deposition, which the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documented here. He objected to the second subpoena, which requested documents, on the grounds that the materials were protected under shield law and reporter’s privilege. Vary was reissued an identical subpoena on Dec. 29, 2021.
Spacey’s attorney filed a motion on Feb. 9, 2022, to compel the journalist to provide additional testimony and submit his unpublished reporting materials.
According to documents reviewed by the Tracker, Vary was ordered to submit the withheld materials for an “in-camera” inspection on June 7 in a judge’s chambers to determine which documents were privileged and which were not.
Vary submitted five USB sticks containing various documents, a copy of an opposition declaration, a log of confidential source information, a record of attorney-client communications and a transmittal letter of all materials submitted for inspection, according to court documents.
New York District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled on Aug. 9 that Vary would have about a week to turn over documents that were not deemed confidential, including communications between him and Rapp before 2017, and any communications Vary had with a production company regarding a documentary on Spacey. Kaplan also ordered Vary to sit for an additional deposition on or before Sept. 9, 2022, requiring him to answer all questions he initially refused to answer during his first deposition as well as answer further questions about the newly produced documents.
Jean-Paul Jassy, Vary’s lawyer, told the Tracker in a statement that he was pleased the ruling protected Vary’s confidential reporting.
“The Court correctly concluded that Adam B. Vary acted as a professional journalist should. The Court denied most of Spacey's motion. Although we don't agree with all aspects of the Court's order, we appreciate that the Court rejected nearly all of what Spacey's attorneys requested, and the Court did not order the disclosure of any privileged material. Mr. Vary fully protected his confidential sources,” Jassy said.
Freelance photojournalist Jeremy Portje was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors and a felony while documenting a homeless encampment in Sausalito, California, on Nov. 30, 2021, according to an officer from the Sausalito Police Department.
Portje was filming for a documentary about homelessness in Marin County, according to the Pacific Sun, a weekly newspaper in the county. A witness identified as a volunteer at the encampment told the Pacific Sun that an officer was following Portje and deliberately stood in front of his camera as he tried to film.
The volunteer told the newspaper an officer grabbed Portje’s camera without provocation, and appeared to accidentally hit himself with the equipment.
“The officer reacted to the camera hitting him,” the volunteer told the Pacific Sun. “He started punching Jeremy.”
Portje attempted to defend himself from the blows but was quickly forced to the ground and placed under arrest, the newspaper reported. At some point during the altercation the officer threw Portje’s camera to the ground. No equipment damage was mentioned in initial reports of the incident.
In footage of Portje’s arrest published by the Pacific Sun, the photojournalist can be heard saying, “Why are they doing this? Because I asked them questions?”
Neither Portje nor his attorney responded to requests for comment.
Portje’s camera can be seen lying on the pavement behind him as two officers work to place him in handcuffs while a third keeps the growing crowd back as voices can be heard shouting “let him go” and “don’t hurt him.”
An officer from the Sausalito Police Department told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that Portje was arrested shortly after 5 p.m. and charged with resisting an executive officer, battery on a police officer and battery on a police officer with injury. If convicted on all charges, Portje faces up to $5,000 in fines, three years imprisonment or both.
Charles Dresow, a criminal defense attorney representing Portje, told the Pacific Sun the photojournalist spent the night in jail and was released the following morning on $15,000 bail.
“My journalist client ended up on the ground,” Dresow said. “It’s clear the Sausalito police used force to arrest a journalist. To say this is an outrage of constitutional proportions is an understatement.”
When reached for comment, Sausalito Mayor Jill Hoffman told the Tracker officers were called to the park to respond to a disturbance and that Portje had interfered with police activity, injuring a police sergeant in the process.
“We have shown that we support and respect the right to free speech,” Hoffman said. “What is unacceptable is impeding a police investigation and injuring a member of our department.”
Hoffman confirmed that Portje’s camera equipment was seized as evidence.
The Pacific Sun reported that the three officers who arrested him were the same officers who arrested two homeless people for camping in a park two weeks prior. According to the newspaper, Portje had recently made a public records request for the body camera footage from that incident.
The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol subpoenaed phone records belonging to freelance photojournalist Amy Harris on Nov. 24, 2021. Harris filed a suit against the committee in December calling for the subpoena to be quashed.
According to Harris’ lawsuit, Verizon notified her on Dec. 2 that it had received a subpoena compelling the telecommunications company to produce: “All subscriber information and all call, text messaging, and other records of communications associated with Ms. Harris’ phone number for a period of almost three months between November 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021.”
Harris, who is a member of the National Press Photographers Association, primarily focused on travel and music photography prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cut off from those subjects, the lawsuit states she began documenting protests following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020 and political protests leading up to the November election.
Harris, who did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit, was struck with pepper balls and tear gassed while covering protests in Louisville Kentucky on June 1.
Harris was actively working on a project documenting the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, and its leader, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, during the time frame covered by the subpoena, according to the suit, and was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the building.
In the lawsuit, Harris says that she lost her phone amidst the chaos that day but it was recovered by an unidentified Proud Boys member who left it at the Hyatt Hotel for her to pick up.
The House Select Committee, established on June 30 chaired by democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, issued a subpoena to Verizon for Harris’s phone records in November, ordering the company to turn over the documents by Dec. 8. Verizon notified Harris that unless it received a court document challenging the subpoena by Dec. 15, it would be forced to comply.
In the lawsuit filed on Dec. 15, Harris’s attorneys argued: “Not only do the telephone records sought by the House Select Committee intrude on the personal and privileged communications of a private citizen, but they also seek information sufficient to reveal the identities of Harris’ confidential sources and would impermissibly intrude on her protected newsgathering activities.”
It was not immediately clear whether the House Select Committee was aware the number belonged to Harris prior to issuing the subpoena, Politico reported.
The suit highlights apparent hypocrisy in the committee’s actions, pointing to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s July policy barring using subpoenas, warrants or court orders to obtain reporters’ records. Additionally, Thompson issued a statement on Dec. 13 stating the importance of not using government surveillance powers to target journalists.
The lawsuit calls for the subpoena to be quashed and for Harris to be awarded costs and attorneys fees. As of publication, no hearings have been scheduled in the case.
A portion of the subpoena issued to Verizon for phone records belonging to freelance photojournalist Amy Harris, who was documenting the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, and their leader, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio.
",None,None,None,None,False,1:21-cv-03290,['DISMISSED'],Civil,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['DROPPED'],Verizon,telecom company,Third-party,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,"Donald Trump, election, Election 2020, white nationalism",,, 2022-08-11 19:29:51.547358+00:00,2022-08-12 14:31:29.094653+00:00,Family Court judge quashes subpoena issued to former Honolulu Civil Beat reporter,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/family-court-judge-quashes-subpoena-issued-to-former-honolulu-civil-beat-reporter/,2022-08-12 14:31:29.000906+00:00,,LegalOrder object (162),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Kevin Knodell (Honolulu Civil Beat),,2021-11-17,False,Kapolei,Hawaii (HI),21.33555,-158.0582,"A Family Court judge in Kapolei, Hawaii, quashed a subpoena in 2022 that requested reporting notes, text messages and emails from former Honolulu Civil Beat reporter Kevin Knodell.
Knodell was issued the subpoena on Nov. 17, 2021, after publishing articles detailing Navy service member Jonathan Stremel’s claims that gender bias impacted a military investigation into child abuse allegations. Knodell extensively interviewed military officials, experts and Stremel’s wife’s lawyer, David Hayakawa, while investigating the claims.
According to Civil Beat, Stremel subpoenaed Knodell during his divorce case, and asked a judge to sanction Hayakawa for sharing full documents with Knodell, arguing the files were confidential.
A copy of the subpoena shows Stremel demanded a list of items, including published and unpublished documents, encrypted text messages between Knodell and his sources, and communications between Knodell and his editors.
Knodell, who now works for the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he is glad the case is finally settled and he can move forward with his life and other reporting.
“From a precedent standpoint, I hope this can be cited in other cases where reporters are harassed or attempts to use them as witnesses in court proceedings are made,” Knodell said.
Civil Beat General Manager Patti Epler told the Tracker that even though Hawaii doesn’t have a shield law and Knodell is no longer on staff, it was still in the news outlet’s best interest to fight against the order.
“The subpoena did not name Civil Beat, but there was no indication that it wouldn’t, and it didn’t seem right not to defend someone who had done good work for us and had done the reporting in good faith,” Epler said.
In a “Behind the Story” article for Civil Beat about the subpoena, Epler wrote that Judge Elizabeth Paek-Harris quashed the subpoena and denied any sanctions against Hayakawa in a March 2022 hearing. Paek-Harris ruled that providing Knodell documents from the divorce case was not a violation of any court rule. The final order was issued in July.
Epler said Civil Beat would continue protecting its reporters from these legal orders.
“It's really on us to defend our staff and argue against any kind of intrusion whether it's from the government or elsewhere.”
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include comment from reporter Kevin Knodell.
On Nov. 6, 2021, FBI agents raided the Mamaroneck, New York, home of conservative group Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe as part of an investigation into the reported theft of a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, President Joe Biden’s daughter, The New York Times reported.
According to a statement published on Project Veritas’ website, the search came two days after raids had taken place at the homes of multiple individuals affiliated with the group, which describes itself as a non-profit investigative organization. The group is known for its hidden-camera sting operations that typically target liberal politicians and nonprofits, as well as news organizations including CNN and NPR.
O’Keefe, who did not respond to an emailed request for comment, said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the agents arrived at his home before dawn, placed him in handcuffs, seized two of his iPhones and searched his apartment for more than two hours.
“On my phone were many of my reporter's notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to this story and a lot of confidential information to our news organization,” O’Keefe said. “If they can do this to me, if they can do this to this journalist and raid my home and take my reporter notes, they’ll do it to any journalist.”
In the Fox News interview, Paul Calli, one of the attorneys representing O’Keefe, said the search warrant cited misprision of — or knowingly helping to conceal — a felony, accessory after the fact and transporting materials across state lines as the basis of the warrant.
Calli denied allegations that his client or Project Veritas was involved in the theft of Biden’s diary. O’Keefe confirmed that Project Veritas was approached by individuals claiming to possess the diary in 2020, but said in his statement that they had declined to publish its contents and had turned the diary over to law enforcement.
“It appears the Southern District of New York now has journalists in their sights for the supposed ‘crime’ of doing their jobs lawfully and honestly,” O’Keefe said, in reference to the judicial district in Manhattan. “Our efforts were the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism and we are in no doubt that Project Veritas acted properly at each and every step.”
Trevor Timm, the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, where the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker is housed, wrote on Twitter that the raid of O’Keefe’s home was concerning.
“This is worrying from a press freedom perspective—unless & until DOJ releases evidence [Project] Veritas was directly involved in the theft,” Timm wrote. “Because if there is none, then the raids could very well be a violation of the Privacy Protection Act.”
The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 states that a state and federal law enforcement cannot search for or seize journalistic work product or documentary materials under claims of probable cause if the alleged offense consists of the receipt, possession, communication or withholding of the materials or the information they contain.
“If you take it as true that they were given this diary by someone unknown to them and they chose not to publish it, this is kind of a classic journalistic situation,” said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor and former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “And what law enforcement should have done is issue a subpoena.”
Kirtley told the Tracker she agreed that regardless of the debates surrounding Project Veritas’ methods, the raid of O’Keefe’s home and the seizure of his phone could set a dangerous precedent.
“When we get in the business of government trying to decide when someone is a journalist and when someone isn’t, there’s always a danger that some definitions will be narrow and they will weed out a lot of people who deserve to have journalistic protections,” Kirtley said. “As troublesome as I find Project Veritas’ activities — and again, I do not defend any illegal conduct on their part at all — that is a separate question from whether or not they should be protected by these laws. And if they aren’t then I think all journalists are at risk.”
Another O’Keefe attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, told the Tracker that agents had executed the warrant despite O’Keefe’s attorneys having “indicated a willingness to cooperate and provide any information necessary.”
Dhillon tweeted on Nov. 11 that District Court Judge Analisa Torres had ordered that the Department of Justice halt its review of O’Keefe’s phones pending a ruling on their request for a special master — typically a retired judge without ties to the case — to be appointed to oversee the search of the devices.
"We are gratified that the Department of Justice has been ordered to stop extracting and reviewing confidential and privileged information obtained in their raids of our reporters, including legal, donor, and confidential source communications," Dhillon told Fox News.
In a statement released on Nov. 14, Brian Hauss of the American Civil Liberties Union expressed concern for the precedent that could be set by the case and urged the court to appoint a special master.
“Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all,” wrote Hauss, who is a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures.”
As of publication date, the court had not yet ruled on a special master.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York told the Tracker it does not provide comment on pending cases.
For the purposes of the Tracker, O’Keefe identifies as a journalist, has a track record of publication and said the phones seized by the FBI contained his reporter’s notes. For more about how the Tracker counts incidents, see our frequently asked questions page.
Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, speaking here at the Conservative Political Action Conference in early 2021, was detained by FBI agents at his home and his phones seized on Nov. 6.
",detained and released without being processed,FBI,None,None,False,None,[],None,in custody,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,Federal,None,False,None,,Department of Justice,,, 2022-09-07 19:06:19.330496+00:00,2023-06-29 16:27:27.812680+00:00,Former BuzzFeed reporter ordered to sit for deposition in lawsuit against Kevin Spacey,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/former-buzzfeed-reporter-ordered-to-sit-for-deposition-in-lawsuit-against-kevin-spacey/,2023-06-29 16:27:27.710051+00:00,,LegalOrder object (160),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Adam Vary (BuzzFeed News),,2021-11-04,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"Former BuzzFeed News reporter Adam B. Vary was subpoenaed for testimony on Nov. 4, 2021, as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit filed against the actor Kevin Spacey. On Aug. 9, 2022, a district judge granted a motion to compel Vary to partially comply with the order.
According to a September 2020 civil complaint, Anthony Rapp was a 14-year-old actor in a Broadway play in 1986 when Spacey befriended him and invited him to a party at his New York City apartment, where Rapp claims Spacey sexually abused him.
Rapp approached journalist Vary, who was also a long-time friend, in 2017 about his claims against Spacey. Vary then wrote an article about the allegations published by BuzzFeed in late October 2017.
According to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Vary was issued two subpoenas by Spacey’s attorneys during the course of discovery. In this first subpoena, issued on Nov. 4, 2021, Vary was ordered to sit for a deposition. While he complied with the order the following month, Vary refused to answer questions about the BuzzFeed article or any unpublished materials he gathered in the course of reporting.
Spacey’s attorneys issued a second subpoena in December 2021, requesting Vary provide documents, including copies of confidential communications and reporting materials. The Tracker documented that subpoena here. In February 2022, Spacey’s attorneys filed a motion to compel Vary to sit for an additional deposition after his refusal to answer questions about the article during the first deposition.
New York District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled on Aug. 9, 2022, that while Vary does not have to produce privileged materials, he must sit for a supplementary deposition on or before Sept. 9 to answer all questions he had refused to answer during his first deposition as well as questions about the newly produced documents.
Seattle-based journalist Eli Sanders reported that in November 2021, Facebook issued him a subpoena seeking nearly four years of his reporting records.
The social media company was under investigation by the State of Washington for allegedly selling state political ads without maintaining data as is required under state law. Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a campaign finance lawsuit against Facebook on April 14, 2020.
According to his Substack newsletter, Wild West, Sanders had requested that Facebook send him its political ad data. When the company refused to do so, he filed complaints with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.
Sanders did not respond to emailed requests for comment from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Sanders wrote that in November 2020 the state informed him that he was being listed as a trial witness in the campaign finance lawsuit, citing his first-hand experience with Facebook’s failure to comply with state disclosure law. In November 2021, attorneys for the social media company issued him a subpoena.
According to Sanders, the subpoena sought documents from December 2017 to the present, including his reporting materials on Facebook political ads in the state, its failure to disclose information on those ads, communications with "any other person or entity" about the state's disclosure law, any communications between him and five other named sources from reporting on the topic across multiple years plus "anyone acting on their behalf."
Sanders wrote that he sought legal support from the Substack Defender program, and his attorney was able to reach an agreement with Facebook.
According to court records on the King County Superior Court system reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, attorneys for the state and Facebook filed a joint stipulation on April 13, 2022, specifying that Sanders would only be asked to testify about his requests to Facebook for political ad data and not about his sources. The stipulation also detailed that Facebook — which was then under the newly named Meta umbrella — would drop its document subpoena.
“What I could not understand was why Facebook, to prove its (ultimately failed) argument that Washington’s disclosure law can’t withstand constitutional legal scrutiny, would need to dig through years of my reporting records,” Sanders wrote.
According to his newsletter, Sanders sat for a “relatively brief” deposition a few weeks later, in late April or early May. The judge in the case ruled on Sept. 2 that Facebook had repeatedly violated that state disclosure law, rejecting the company’s request to gut the finance transparency law, The Washington Post reported.
A federal judge in Chicago, Illinois, upheld a subpoena on April 29, 2022, compelling CBS2 News to produce raw, unpublished video and audio footage as part of a lawsuit brought by a mother on behalf of her son.
According to court documents, the subpoena ordered CBS2 News to produce footage collected after a reporter interviewed the child, who was allegedly beaten in a school bathroom with belts provided by his teacher, and the child’s relative, who is accused of the assault.
The subpoena was originally issued to CBS2 News’ parent company, ViacomCBS, in June 2021 but was withdrawn on Oct. 21 after ViacomCBS objected, arguing that the media company was not the custodian of the footage.
On Oct. 26, lawyers for the plaintiff reissued identical subpoenas to a former CBS2 news editor, reporter Dave Savini and redirected ViacomCBS’ original subpoena to CBS Broadcasting, Inc. also known as CBS2 News, for footage gathered for a segment that aired in February 2019.
CBS2 objected to all of the subpoenas, stating that all materials were privileged newsgathering information. Attorneys for CBS2 also cited federal and state reporter’s privilege statutes, saying that collecting the files would be “unduly burdensome to produce.”
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit then filed a motion to compel CBS2 to produce the footage but agreed to narrow the scope, demanding only the video and audio outtake recordings of interviews with the child and accused assailant.
In her decision, United States Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan upheld the CBS2 subpoena and granted the motion to compel. Finnegan wrote that “there is no federal common-law reporter’s privilege applicable in this case, and CBS2 cannot withhold the requested audio/video outtakes on this basis.” The court ordered the outlet to produce the unreleased footage by May 13, 2022. The status of the other subpoenas is unknown.
A portion of the subpoena issued to CBS2 News seeking unpublished video and audio footage as part of a lawsuit against the Chicago Department of Education. — SCREENSHOT
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['UPHELD'],None,None,Institution,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,WBBM-TV,,,, 2022-08-02 19:27:18.975782+00:00,2022-08-02 19:27:18.975782+00:00,Production company subpoenaed for documentary footage in criminal case,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/production-company-subpoenaed-for-documentary-footage-in-criminal-case/,2022-08-02 19:27:18.902097+00:00,,LegalOrder object (156),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2021-10-18,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"Painless Television, Inc., a California-based production company, was issued a subpoena by the state’s attorney of Cook County for unaired documentary footage as part of a wrongful-conviction hearing in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 18, 2021.
An attorney for the media company, Steven Mandell, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker the subpoena requested both published and unpublished footage from an episode of “Reasonable Doubt,” which aired on Investigation Discovery. The episode investigated assertions that Roosevelt Myles was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1996, and included interviews with his family members and neighbors, including a witness who claimed he could provide Myles an alibi. The episode aired in May 2020 and Myles was released from prison that July. The subpoena was issued by an assistant state’s attorney as part of the post-conviction hearing discovery process.
Mandell said Painless Television produced the documentary for Discovery Channel, which was itself subpoenaed in July 2021. The Tracker has documented that subpoena here.
“One of the things that the prosecutor did was not only ask for the as-broadcast version of the program but also any outtakes, including any footage of witnesses that were not broadcast,” Mandell said. “In response, the producers at Discovery were willing to give the as-broadcast version but maintained — appropriately in my view — that the outtakes were protected by the shield law.”
Discovery and Painless Television are headquartered in New York and California, respectively, states that have some of the strongest shield laws for members of the press in the country, Mandell said. Illinois, on the other hand, has a qualified privilege meaning that it can be overcome or “divested” under certain circumstances.
“We argued that if there’s a public interest involved it’s to protect the press,” Mandell said. “One of the roles the press plays is to shine a light on government, not to assist or facilitate government action. To preserve the flow of information from confidential or even non-confidential sources, the press has to assert its privilege and not be viewed as an arm or an instrument of the police.”
On June 27, 2022, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Carol Howard struck down the subpoenas against both Discovery and Painless Television. According to a court transcript reviewed by the Tracker, Howard found that the state’s attorney had failed to meet the requirements to overcome the reporter’s privilege.
“The State has not set forth the specific information that is sought and why that information is relevant to the proceedings. The State cannot say with any amount of specificity exactly what they are seeking,” Howard said. “And the State simply has not met the third requirement that requires you to exhaust all available sources of the information.”
Painless Television did not respond to messages requesting comment.
Chase Peterson-Withorn, the deputy wealth editor for Forbes, was subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney on Sept. 21, 2021, to testify in New York City before a grand jury in an ongoing investigation of former President Donald Trump’s finances.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. first launched the criminal investigation into Trump’s businesses in 2019, after Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump manipulated the value of his wealth when seeking loans and preparing taxes.
Forbes Chief Content Officer and Editor, Randall Lane, was also subpoenaed and said in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that they had fought the order for three months until a judge ultimately ordered them to testify on Dec. 16, 2021.
“We think this is wrong, we didn’t want to testify, we don’t want to testify,” Lane said. “Think about the precedent that’s set here — how do you have an autonomous press if you’re supposed to testify about the people you cover regularly?”
After testifying, Lane wrote about the process in an article for Forbes. Peterson-Withorn, who declined to comment further but confirmed Lane’s reporting, testified after Lane for about five minutes. Prosecutors focused their questions on Peterson-Withorn’s 2017 reporting on the value of Trump’s New York City apartment.
“We revealed no new information during the testimony. If we were sitting on anything newsworthy, we would have already shared that with our readers,” Lane wrote in the article.
According to Lane, the questions asked by prosecutors were limited in scope and mostly to “yes or no” answers, but the “creeping use of subpoenas to undermine a free press” sets a dangerous precedent, he said.
“Reporters and prosecutors both serve the public, but in different ways. The latter shouldn’t trample on the efficacy of the former.”
Chief content officer and editor of Forbes, Randall Lane, was subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney on Sept. 21, 2021, to testify in New York City before a grand jury in an ongoing investigation of former President Donald Trump’s finances.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. first launched the criminal investigation into Trump’s businesses in 2019, after Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump manipulated the value of his wealth when seeking loans and preparing taxes.
Lane, who did not respond to a request for comment on the subpoena, said in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he was asked to testify about his 2015 cover story chronicling Trump’s fixation with his estimated wealth and place in the magazine’s ranking of the 400 richest people in America.
In the interview, Lane said he and his attorneys fought hard against the subpoena for three months until a judge ultimately ordered him to testify on Dec. 16, 2021.
“We think this is wrong, we didn’t want to testify, we don’t want to testify,” Lane said. “Think about the precedent that’s set here — how do you have an autonomous press if you’re supposed to testify about the people you cover regularly?”
3 months ago, Cyrus Vance subpoenaed me to appear before the Trump grand jury. The Forbes legal team fought it all the way, but yesterday, I was compelled to testify about our reporting that’s already public, shared with the world. It’s a bad precedent. https://t.co/j2mhspjLx5
— Randall Lane (@RandallLane) December 17, 2021
Lane wrote in Forbes that the testimony lasted about 20 minutes. He answered questions strictly on the accuracy of previously reported stories, he said, including his reporting on Trump’s history with the Forbes 400 list and the methodology used to determine who the magazine names the nation’s richest people.
“To be clear, the original story transparently reported what Trump told us six years ago,” Lane wrote. “We revealed no new information during the testimony. If we were sitting on anything newsworthy, we would have already shared that with our readers.”
Lane added that while his testimony was limited in scope and mostly to “yes or no” answers, the order sets a dangerous precedent with the “creeping use of subpoenas to undermine a free press” and highlighted the recent subpoena of freelance photojournalist Amy Harris by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riots on the Capitol.
“Reporters and prosecutors both serve the public, but in different ways. The latter shouldn’t trample on the efficacy of the former.”
Independent journalist and blogger Kevin Brookman was ordered on Aug. 26, 2021, to surrender his phone and laptop for forensic examination in connection with defamation claims made by a police officer in Hartford, Connecticut.
Brookman writes and publishes We the People — Hartford, an investigative news blog focused on local government and public safety. According to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a series of anonymous comments were posted to the site between August and October 2019 that then-Lieutenant Vincent Benvenuto of the Hartford Police Department alleged had defamed him.
Benvenuto, who has since been promoted to captain, filed a discovery petition against Brookman in November 2019, requesting that the court order the journalist to turn over identifying information about the anonymous commenters so Benvenuto could pursue defamation cases against them.
Benvenuto also asserted that the commenters were fellow police officers who made the posts in violation of the department’s social media guidelines.
Brookman maintains that not only does he not have access to the requested information but that he should be protected from such an order by the state’s reporter shield law. His court filings cite news outlets ranging from the Hartford Courant and The Hartford News to local broadcast stations WFSB and WVIT that have credited Brookman in their stories for breaking news on his blog.
Superior Court Judge Cesar Noble ruled, however, that he does not qualify as a journalist as blogs are not explicitly mentioned in the statute’s definition of news media.
Connecticut state law defines the news media as:
“Any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite or other transmission system or carrier, or channel or programming service for such station, network, system or carrier, or audio or audiovisual production company that disseminates information to the public, whether by print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, electronic or any other means or medium.”
Brookman told the Tracker that while he doesn’t consider himself a journalist in the same way as someone who reports for a living, he believes his work is journalistic in nature.
“By the definition, I am a journalist because I'm providing news content,” Brookman said. “It’s not something I ever intended to be, but by doing what I do I think it has become that.”
As part of the August order, Brookman was required to turn over his equipment to Benvenuto’s digital forensics expert, who said that only the data stored on the devices, as well as the journalist’s communications, will aid in identifying the commenters.
“While a forensic analysis of the defendant’s data is unlikely to yield an IP address it might contain identifiers in emails and texts that may be used to identify identical key words relative to the comments,” Noble wrote in his decision.
Mario Cerame, an attorney representing Brookman, told the Tracker that the forensic analysis could not only jeopardize the anonymity of the commenters but potentially expose the journalist’s confidential sources and personal communications.
“It’s super sweeping, because you’re going through all of his email and communications,” Cerame said. “On the face of it, it seems crazy town to force a reporter or journalist to give over his laptop and cellphone for forensic review on the orders of a police lieutenant.”
Brookman filed a motion asking Noble to reconsider his decision, and when Noble denied that motion the journalist filed an appeal with the state appellate court. The case was transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court in April 2022, which heard arguments on Oct. 19, 2023.
Cerame told the Tracker that what is at stake in the case is not only a potential narrowing of the shield law to the exclusion of modern digital journalists but also an exposure of anonymous speakers that could chill future whistleblowers.
“If they are able to uncover the identities of these cops, I think fewer people will be willing to come forward to journalists or to write criticisms of public figure plaintiffs like this,” Cerame said. “All [Benvenuto and his attorneys] really want is to scare people from talking.”
A portion of an Aug. 26, 2023, court decision ordering independent journalist and blogger Kevin Brookman to submit his cellphone and computer to forensic examination in order to identify anonymous commenters on his blog, We the People — Hartford.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,other,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2021-09-15 19:30:33.057676+00:00,2021-09-15 19:30:33.057676+00:00,Reporter subpoenaed to give evidence at Missouri murder trial,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-subpoenaed-to-give-evidence-at-missouri-murder-trial/,2021-09-15 19:30:33.019763+00:00,,LegalOrder object (153),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Gladys Bautista (KRCG),,2021-08-20,False,Columbia,Missouri (MO),38.95171,-92.33407,"A judge in Missouri has allowed a reporter to be subpoenaed to give evidence at a murder trial.
The prosecutors have subpoenaed Gladys Bautista, a former reporter for CBS affiliate KRCG 13 in Columbia, Missouri. Bautista, now a reporter for WLKY in Louisville, Kentucky, will be asked to return to Columbia to attend the trial, according to a report by KRCG.
The Boone County prosecutor’s office confirmed that the court had signed an order for the subpoena on Aug. 20, 2021.
Prosecutors charged Joseph Elledge with first-degree murder in the 2019 death of his wife, Mengqi Ji.
Prosecutors said exclusive interview footage with Bautista showed Elledge was lying when he said he didn’t know his wife’s whereabouts after reporting her missing.
The murder trial is scheduled to begin on Nov. 1, the report said.
Bautista and KRCG did not reply to requests from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker for a comment.
A San Luis Obispo County superior judge quashed a subpoena seeking testimony and reporting materials from freelance reporter and podcast host Chris Lambert during hearings around the 1996 disappearance and murder of a California Polytechnic State University student.
Lambert’s 2019 podcast, “Your Own Backyard,” chronicled his independent investigation of the murder of Cal Poly student Kristin Smart. In the span of 10 episodes, he interviewed new witnesses whom law enforcement officers had cited as “valuable” in their decision to arrest Paul Flores and his father, Ruben Flores, two longtime suspects in the case.
On Aug. 10, 2021, during preliminary hearings in the case, Paul Flores’ defense attorneys served Lambert, who was present in the courtroom covering the hearings as a member of the press, with an order to testify. The order also demanded he turn over confidential interview recordings, emails and notes gathered in the course of producing the podcast. Flores’ attorney argued Lambert had used “the cloak of a journalist” to try to influence the proceedings.
Lambert’s attorney, Diana Palacios, filed a motion to quash the order on Aug. 23, citing First Amendment privileges granted to the press as well as California’s reporters’ shield law, which protects journalists from testifying and disclosing confidential sources or unpublished materials.
On Sept. 8, San Luis Obispo County Superior Judge Craig van Rooyen, the judge overseeing the case, dismissed the subpoena. He recognized Lambert as a member of the press and agreed that both the First Amendment and the shield law protected him from testifying in the case.
Van Rooyen also recognized that the order, had it been upheld, would have been a breach of confidence.
“It is the chilling effect that the shield law means to avoid,” he said.
Lambert had been covering the preliminary hearings for his blog, “Hallway Blog,” but decided to suspend the posts until the end of the hearings.
Lambert declined a request for comment through his publicist when reached via email.
Dylan Brogan, the senior reporter at the digital outlet Isthmus, was one of three journalists subpoenaed on Aug. 5, 2021, to testify at the upcoming trial of two women charged with assault in Madison, Wisconsin.
Brogan told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker the subpoena is connected to the assault of state Sen. Tim Carpenter at a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020. On June 23, protesters were hostile to anyone who was filming or photographing and members of the crowd directed their ire at Carpenter when he stopped to take a photo of the demonstration, Brogan wrote in an article at the time. A group of approximately 10 individuals then beat the senator as he attempted to identify himself.
According to a court filing in opposition to the subpoenas, the Dane County district attorney’s office issued subpoenas to Brogan, WORT 89.9 reporter Chali Pittman and WKOW-TV reporter Lance Veeser via mail to compel their eyewitness testimony. An attorney representing the journalists notified Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey they would not comply with the subpoenas as served, as they were issued improperly and violated the state’s shield law.
“The Wisconsin Legislature has enacted a reporters’ privilege law that absolutely prohibits compelling a news person to testify about confidential sources and conditionally prohibits the issuance of a subpoena compelling a news person to testify about ‘[a]ny news, information, or identity of any source of any news or information,’” the filing reads.
The district attorney’s office argued that it had been unable to identify other witnesses and therefore the journalists’ testimony is vital to the case against the defendants, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
On Sept. 9, 2021, Judge Josann Reynolds ruled in favor of the prosecutors and granted an order compelling the three journalists to comply with the subpoenas and appear to testify starting Oct. 18, according to the Journal Sentinel.
“The public already knows everything that I know. Putting a journalist on the stand to provide some sort of narrative to supposedly aid in a criminal prosecution compromises all the ethics of being a journalist,” Brogan said.
District Attorney Ismael Ozanne told the Tracker via email that his office was pleased with the ruling.
“It is my understanding the court made a very good record of the decision in this case on this matter,” Ozanne wrote. “This is not a situation in which an informant’s identity needs to be kept confidential. I don’t believe telling the truth compromises a person’s reputation.”
The reporters are considering appealing the ruling, Brogan told the Tracker, but the financial burden is daunting.
“We’re a small little reboot of a paper,” Brogan said of Isthmus. “The appeal process: we’re trying to figure it out, but it’s very expensive. On principle we want to fight this but I’m not sure we can afford it.”
Brogan told the Tracker that if they are unable to move forward with an appeal or the appeal fails, he will likely comply with the subpoena.
A portion of the subpoena for senior reporter Dylan Brogan, who was covering a June 2020 Black Lives Matter protest for the digital outlet Isthmus.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['CARRIED_OUT'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,"Black Lives Matter, protest",,, 2021-09-20 16:42:09.341180+00:00,2023-03-09 19:49:53.774938+00:00,Broadcast reporter ordered to testify in assault trial connected to BLM protest,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/broadcast-reporter-ordered-to-testify-in-assault-trial-connected-to-blm-protest/,2023-03-09 19:49:53.675692+00:00,,LegalOrder object (148),(2021-10-18 13:12:00+00:00) Judge quashes subpoena for broadcast reporter’s testimony in assault trial connected to BLM protest,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Lance Veeser (WKOW),,2021-08-05,False,Madison,Wisconsin (WI),43.07305,-89.40123,"Lance Veeser, a broadcast reporter at WKOW, was one of three journalists subpoenaed on Aug. 5, 2021, to testify at the upcoming trial of two women charged with assaulting state Sen. Tim Carpenter at a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020 in Madison, Wisconsin.
On June 23, protesters were hostile to anyone who was filming or photographing and members of the crowd directed their ire at Carpenter when he stopped to take a photo of the demonstration, Isthmus reported at the time. A group of approximately 10 individuals then beat the senator as he attempted to identify himself.
Veeser did not respond to an emailed request for comment. Veeser posted an image to Twitter on the night of the attack, writing, “I believe this is State Senator Tim Carpenter. Minutes earlier he told us the protesters assaulted him. Then he collapsed walking towards the Capitol. We called paramedics.”
I believe this is State Senator Tim Carpenter. Minutes earlier he told us the protesters assaulted him. Then he collapsed walking towards the Capitol. We called paramedics. An ambulance is here now. pic.twitter.com/uUSdKyQ1hp
— Lance Veeser (@lanceveeser) June 24, 2020
According to a court filing in opposition to the subpoenas, the Dane County district attorney’s office issued subpoenas to Veeser, WORT 89.9 reporter Chali Pittman and Isthmus senior reporter Dylan Brogan via mail to compel their eyewitness testimony. However, neither the police report about the incident nor the prosecutor’s motion in support of the subpoenas make any mention of Veeser witnessing the actual assault.
An attorney representing the journalists notified Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey they would not comply with the subpoenas as served, as they were issued improperly and violated the state’s shield law.
“The Wisconsin Legislature has enacted a reporters’ privilege law that absolutely prohibits compelling a news person to testify about confidential sources and conditionally prohibits the issuance of a subpoena compelling a news person to testify about ‘[a]ny news, information, or identity of any source of any news or information,’” the filing reads.
The district attorney’s office argued that it had been unable to identify other witnesses and therefore the journalists’ testimony is vital to the case against the defendants, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
On Sept. 9, 2021, Judge Josann Reynolds ruled in favor of the prosecutors and granted an order compelling the three journalists to comply with the subpoenas and appear to testify starting Oct. 18, according to the Journal Sentinel.
District Attorney Ismael Ozanne told the Tracker via email that his office was pleased with the ruling.
“It is my understanding the court made a very good record of the decision in this case on this matter,” Ozanne wrote. “This is not a situation in which an informant’s identity needs to be kept confidential. I don’t believe telling the truth compromises a person’s reputation.”
Brogan and Pittman told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker the journalists are considering appealing the ruling, but are concerned about the financial burden.
Chali Pittman, a reporter and news and public affairs director for WORT-FM, was one of three journalists subpoenaed on Aug. 5, 2021, to testify at the upcoming trial of two women charged with assault in Madison, Wisconsin.
Pittman told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker the subpoena is connected to the assault of state Sen. Tim Carpenter at a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020. On June 23, protesters were hostile to anyone who was filming or photographing and members of the crowd directed their ire at Carpenter when he stopped to take a photo of the demonstration, Isthmus reported at the time. A group of approximately 10 individuals then beat the senator as he attempted to identify himself.
According to a court filing in opposition to the subpoenas, the Dane County district attorney’s office issued subpoenas to Pittman, Isthmus reporter Dylan Brogan and WKOW-TV reporter Lance Veeser via mail to compel their eyewitness testimony. An attorney representing the journalists notified Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey they would not comply with the subpoenas as served, as they were issued improperly and violated the state’s shield law.
“The Wisconsin Legislature has enacted a reporters’ privilege law that absolutely prohibits compelling a news person to testify about confidential sources and conditionally prohibits the issuance of a subpoena compelling a news person to testify about ‘[a]ny news, information, or identity of any source of any news or information,’” the filing reads.
The district attorney’s office argued that it had been unable to identify other witnesses and therefore the journalists’ testimony is vital to the case against the defendants, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Pittman told the Tracker none of the three journalists are able to identify the individuals involved in the attack.
On Sept. 9, 2021, Judge Josann Reynolds ruled in favor of the prosecutors and granted an order compelling the three journalists to comply with the subpoenas and appear to testify starting Oct. 18, according to the Journal Sentinel.
This morning, a Dane Co judge ruled to compel me and two other local journalists to testify about the events of this night and specifically, the attack against state Sen. Tim Carpenter.
— chali (@chalipittman) September 9, 2021
Yet, none of us are unable to identify any of the attackers. https://t.co/cqXTKF8CKQ
“I have personal and professional reasons for not testifying beyond just reporter’s privilege,” Pittman said. “I work at a community radio station where I wear a lot of hats: One of them is building ties with communities who may not have always trusted community radio or had their voices well-represented in media. So testifying would make that more difficult.”
District Attorney Ismael Ozanne told the Tracker via email that his office was pleased with the ruling.
“It is my understanding the court made a very good record of the decision in this case on this matter,” Ozanne wrote. “This is not a situation in which an informant’s identity needs to be kept confidential. I don’t believe telling the truth compromises a person’s reputation.”
The reporters are considering appealing the ruling, Pittman told the Tracker, but the financial burden is daunting.
“Our lawyers told us that an appeal this time would cost about $20,000 and we’re a nonprofit radio station hanging on by the skin of our teeth,” Pittman said.
Pittman told the Tracker that if they are unable to move forward with an appeal or the appeal fails, she will comply with the subpoena.
Discovery Inc. was issued a subpoena by the state’s attorney of Cook County for unaired documentary footage as part of a wrongful-conviction hearing in Chicago, Illinois, on July 26, 2021.
An attorney for the media company, Steven Mandell, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker the subpoena requested both published and unpublished footage from an episode of “Reasonable Doubt,” which aired on Investigation Discovery. The episode investigated assertions that Roosevelt Myles was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1996, and included interviews with his family members and neighbors, including a witness who claimed he could provide Myles an alibi. The episode aired in May 2020 and Myles was released from prison that July. The subpoena was issued by an assistant state’s attorney as part of the post-conviction hearing discovery process.
Mandell said Painless Television, Inc., a California-based production company, produced the documentary for Discovery Channel and was itself subpoenaed in October 2021. The Tracker has documented that subpoena here.
“One of the things that the prosecutor did was not only ask for the as-broadcast version of the program but also any outtakes, including any footage of witnesses that were not broadcast,” Mandell said. “In response, the producers at Discovery were willing to give the as-broadcast version but maintained — appropriately in my view — that the outtakes were protected by the shield law.”
Discovery and Painless Television are headquartered in New York and California, respectively, states that have some of the strongest shield laws for members of the press in the country, Mandell said. Illinois, on the other hand, has a qualified privilege meaning that it can be overcome or “divested” under certain circumstances.
Mandell told the Tracker that after the subpoena to Discovery Channel was mistakenly issued to an address in Washington state, it was reissued on March 11, 2022.
“We argued that if there’s a public interest involved it’s to protect the press,” Mandell said. “One of the roles the press plays is to shine a light on government, not to assist or facilitate government action. To preserve the flow of information from confidential or even non-confidential sources, the press has to assert its privilege and not be viewed as an arm or an instrument of the police.”
On June 27, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Carol Howard struck down the subpoenas against both Discovery and Painless Television. According to a court transcript reviewed by the Tracker, Howard found that the state’s attorney had failed to meet the requirements to overcome the reporter’s privilege.
“The State has not set forth the specific information that is sought and why that information is relevant to the proceedings. The State cannot say with any amount of specificity exactly what they are seeking,” Howard said. “And the State simply has not met the third requirement that requires you to exhaust all available sources of the information.”
Discovery Inc. did not respond to messages requesting comment.
A subpoena seeking reporting materials was issued to CBS2 News reporter Dave Savini on June 8, 2021, in Chicago, Illinois, as part of a lawsuit brought by a mother on behalf of her son.
According to court documents, subpoenas identical to Savini’s were also served to CBS2 News’ parent company, Viacom CBS, former news editor Derek Dalton and a non-entity on the same date. All demanded footage from Savini’s interview with the child, who was allegedly beaten in a school bathroom with belts provided by his teacher, and the child’s relative, who is accused of the assault. Shortly after the incident, the relative answered questions from Savini after leaving a criminal court. CBS 2 aired a segment with the interviews in February 2019.
Attorneys for CBS objected to the subpoena on behalf of Savini on July 12, stating that all materials were privileged newsgathering information. Attorneys also cited federal and state reporter’s privilege statutes, saying that collecting the files would be “unduly burdensome to produce.”
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit eventually withdrew the subpoena issued to Viacom-CBS on Oct. 21, redirecting it to CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (CBS2) and reissuing the subpoena to Savini and Dalton. Lawyers to the plaintiff also agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoenas, demanding only the video and audio outtake recordings of the interviews. The current status of Savini’s subpoena is unknown but a motion to compel CBS2 to produce the footage was ultimately upheld on April 29, 2022.
In her decision to uphold the outlet’s subpoena, United States Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan wrote that “there is no federal common-law reporter’s privilege applicable in this case, and CBS 2 cannot withhold the requested audio/video outtakes on this basis.” The court ordered the outlet to produce the unreleased footage by May 13, 2022.
On June 8, 2021, a subpoena seeking reporting materials was issued to Derek Dalton as part of his former role as president and general manager of CBS2 News in Chicago, Illinois.
According to court documents, subpoenas identical to Dalton’s were served on the same date to CBS2 News’ parent company, Viacom CBS, reporter Dave Savini, and a non-entity as part of a lawsuit brought by a mother on behalf of her son who was allegedly beaten in a school bathroom with belts provided by his teacher, and the child’s relative, who is accused of the assault. All demanded footage from an interview with the child and with the relative, who answered questions from Savini after leaving a criminal court. CBS 2 aired a segment with the interviews in February 2019.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit eventually withdrew the subpoena issued to Viacom-CBS on Oct. 21, redirecting it to CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (CBS2) and reissuing the subpoena to Dalton and Savini. Lawyers to the plaintiff also agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoenas, demanding only the video and audio outtake recordings of the interviews.
In objecting to the subpoenas, attorneys for CBS claimed Dalton was not currently employed by the company and was not an employee when he was issued the subpoena. The current status of Dalton’s subpoena is unknown but a motion to compel CBS2 to produce the footage was ultimately upheld on April 29, 2022.
In her decision to uphold the outlet’s subpoena, United States Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan wrote that “there is no federal common-law reporter’s privilege applicable in this case, and CBS 2 cannot withhold the requested audio/video outtakes on this basis.” The court ordered the outlet to produce the unreleased footage by May 13, 2022.
A portion of the subpoena issued to the former president and general manager of CBS2 News seeking unpublished video and audio footage as part of a lawsuit against the Chicago Department of Education.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['UNKNOWN'],None,None,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2021-07-08 16:43:22.089841+00:00,2022-04-06 15:01:08.435549+00:00,AP reporter subpoenaed for second time in Idaho criminal case,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/ap-reporter-subpoenaed-for-second-time-in-idaho-criminal-case/,2022-04-06 15:01:08.379599+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (143), LegalOrder object (144)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Keith Ridler (The Associated Press),,2021-05-27,False,Boise,Idaho (ID),43.6135,-116.20345,"Associated Press reporter Keith Ridler was subpoenaed on May 27, 2021, by anti-government activist Ammon Bundy, who was seeking Ridler’s reporting materials and testimony in a criminal case against Bundy in Idaho, according to an AP spokesperson. A judge quashed the subpoena.
The subpoena was filed two months after Ada County Magistrate Judge David Manweiler quashed a previous similar subpoena from Bundy.
Bundy sought the information in a criminal case against him stemming from protests he led against COVID-19 measures at the Idaho Statehouse in August.
Ridler reported on and photographed Bundy’s arrests, according to the AP. The journalist was one of several people Bundy subpoenaed who were at the Statehouse at the time.
Bundy was set to go to trial in March, but the case was delayed when he missed his trial, and was subsequently arrested, for refusing to comply with court rules to wear a mask due to COVID-19 precautions.
At that time, Manweiler sided with the AP, quashing Bundy’s subpoena for Ridler’s testimony and reporting materials, the AP reported.
Bundy again filed a subpoena for Ridler’s testimony and reporting materials in late May. The news organization filed a motion to quash on June 8, according to an AP spokesperson. The spokesperson confirmed that the judge quashed the subpoena.
On July 1, Bundy was found guilty of trespassing. A spokesperson for the AP declined further comment. The Tracker was not able to reach Bundy for comment.
A Washington state Court of Appeals ruled on Jan. 10, 2023, that the state’s shield law protected a Spokesman-Review editor and the outlet from complying with subpoenas seeking testimony and documents as part of a defamation lawsuit. However, the 3-member panel ruled that some information sought from 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 Spokesman-Review 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 the newspaper’s November 2019 subpoena here.
According to The Spokesman-Review, Curley was subpoenaed on May 21, 2021 for testimony and documents related to the agreement. In June 2021, the outlet filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and for a protective order to prevent any violation of the state’s shield law and protect 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 in November, the Appeals Court agreed to the review.
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 Curley and the outlet 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 Executive Editor Rob Curley, on May 21, 2021, seeking testimony and documents during 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,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2021-08-02 16:47:48.340981+00:00,2023-07-13 19:57:49.375399+00:00,Charlottesville-based broadcaster subpoenaed in defamation suit from ‘Unite the Right’ rally,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/charlottesville-based-broadcaster-subpoenaed-in-defamation-suit-from-unite-the-right-rally/,2023-07-13 19:57:49.251767+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (130), LegalOrder object (131)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2021-05-20,False,Charlottesville,Virginia (VA),38.02931,-78.47668,"Local NBC and CW+-affiliate WVIR-TV was among multiple media outlets and journalists subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, for testimony in an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy.
WVIR, which didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment, was issued a 19-page subpoena on May 20, 2021, ordering it to provide deposition testimony via Zoom on June 4. Hoft issued an amended subpoena to the broadcaster on May 27.
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, notified the broadcast station of a broad range of possible subjects for the deposition, including: 1) “the ‘hundreds of top-tier media outlets’ which provided ‘extensive coverage to the Charlottesville residents who were showing up to challenge the spectre of white supremacy;’” 2) the lawsuit and all the topics therein; 3) the KKK and 4) multiple activist organizations and at least 28 named individuals, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, both of whom have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from the far-right.
The subpoena also commanded WVIR to turn over documents, videos, photos and communications exchanged by any of its employees or agents in connection with its coverage of the rally, Heyer’s death or the trials of her murderer, James Alex Fields Jr. The amended subpoena contained additional requests for any and all communications and files concerning the rally exchanged between the outlet and past or present employees of the City of Charlottesville, Office of the Commonwealth Attorney for the City of Charlottesville, the Virginia State Police Virginia Fusion Center, or “any person, organization, nonprofit, and/or other entity.”
WSLS and its reporter Ashley Curtis, and NBC4 and its reporter Julie Carey received subpoenas that were nearly identical to that initially served to WVIR. Attorney Leita Walker, representing all five parties, filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on June 14, describing them as “extremely overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
“[The subpoenas] seek virtually every court filing, police report, email, press release, video, photo or other document that the Non-Party Journalists received from anyone一government sources, witnesses to the events, social media, fellow journalists, wire services, etc.,” Walker wrote in the motion, which was reviewed by the Tracker. “[Hoft] is clearly engaged in a massive and massively inappropriate fishing expedition that, in the case of the Non-Party Journalists, seeks information they obtained in the course of their newsgathering activities.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe ruled in favor of the journalists and outlets, quashing the subpoenas on July 20, citing Hoft’s inadequate pleadings, according to The Daily Progress.
Walker didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.
NBC-affiliate WSLS 10 News was among multiple media outlets and journalists subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, for testimony in an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy.
WSLS, which didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment, was issued a 19-page subpoena on May 20, 2021, ordering it to provide deposition testimony via Zoom on June 4.
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, notified the broadcast station of a broad range of possible subjects for the deposition, including: 1) “the ‘hundreds of top-tier media outlets’ which provided ‘extensive coverage to the Charlottesville residents who were showing up to challenge the spectre of white supremacy;’” 2) the lawsuit and all the topics therein; 3) the KKK and 4) multiple activist organizations and at least 28 named individuals, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, both of whom have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from the far-right.
The subpoena also commanded WSLS to turn over documents, videos, photos and communications exchanged by any of its employees or agents in connection with its coverage of the rally, Heyer’s death or the trials of her murderer, James Alex Fields, Jr.
WSLS reporter Ashley Curtis, NBC4 and its reporter Julie Carey and WVIR-TV received nearly identical subpoenas. Attorney Leita Walker, representing all five parties, filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on June 14, describing them as “extremely overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
“[The subpoenas] seek virtually every court filing, police report, email, press release, video, photo or other document that the Non-Party Journalists received from anyone一government sources, witnesses to the events, social media, fellow journalists, wire services, etc.,” Walker wrote in the motion, which was reviewed by the Tracker. “[Hoft] is clearly engaged in a massive and massively inappropriate fishing expedition that, in the case of the Non-Party Journalists, seeks information they obtained in the course of their newsgathering activities.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe ruled in favor of the journalists and outlets, quashing the subpoenas on July 20, citing Hoft’s inadequate pleadings, according to The Daily Progress.
Walker didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.
WSLS 10 News reporter Ashley Curtis was among multiple journalists and media outlets subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, for testimony in an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy.
Curtis, who didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment, was issued a 19-page subpoena on May 20, 2021, ordering her to provide deposition testimony via Zoom on June 4.
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, notified Curtis of a broad range of possible subjects for the deposition, including: 1) “the ‘hundreds of top-tier media outlets’ which provided ‘extensive coverage to the Charlottesville residents who were showing up to challenge the spectre of white supremacy;’” 2) the lawsuit and all the topics therein; 3) the KKK and 4) multiple activist organizations and at least 28 named individuals, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, both of whom have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from the far-right.
The subpoena also commanded Curtis to turn over documents, videos, photos and communications she exchanged in connection with WSLS’s coverage of the rally, Heyer’s death or the trials of her murderer, James Alex Fields, Jr.
WSLS, WVIR-TV, NBC4 Washington and its reporter Julie Carey received nearly identical subpoenas. Attorney Leita Walker, representing all five parties, filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on June 14, describing them as “extremely overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
“[The subpoenas] seek virtually every court filing, police report, email, press release, video, photo or other document that the Non-Party Journalists received from anyone一government sources, witnesses to the events, social media, fellow journalists, wire services, etc.,” Walker wrote in the motion, which was reviewed by the Tracker. “[Hoft] is clearly engaged in a massive and massively inappropriate fishing expedition that, in the case of the Non-Party Journalists, seeks information they obtained in the course of their newsgathering activities.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe ruled in favor of the journalists and outlets, quashing the subpoenas on July 20, citing Hoft’s inadequate pleadings, according to The Daily Progress.
Neither WSLS nor Walker replied to emailed requests for comment.
Phone records belonging to former New York Times reporter Jessica Bidgood were subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, as part of an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy. Five additional journalists or media outlets were subpoenaed in the proceedings.
On May 20, 2021, Hoft subpoenaed Verizon, ordering the telecommunications company to produce “all phone records, documents, and/or logs, text message documents, phone contacts, phone photos, phone media, phone video, SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION, and CALL DETAILS for the period of March 1, 2017 through March 1, 2018.”
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, listed multiple phone numbers of which at least one belongs or formerly belonged to Bidgood, and ordered Verizon to produce the requested documents by June 4.
Bidgood, who didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment, was working for the Times during the dates specified; she is now a reporter at the Boston Globe.
Charles Tobin, an attorney representing Bidgood, told the Tracker that the Times received word of the subpoena for Bidgood’s records on July 14. Tobin filed objections to the subpoena and a motion to quash the same day. According to that filing, by that date Verizon had already mailed records to Hoft’s attorney but Bidgood hoped that the company could take steps to stop their delivery.
The following day, however, Tobin filed a motion on Bidgood’s behalf requesting that the court order Hoft’s attorney to destroy the documents that had successfully been delivered.
“The subpoena did not mention Bidgood by name, however, and it did not otherwise alert Verizon that Bidgood is a journalist and that her telephone records are therefore privileged journalistic work product under the First Amendment,” the motion read.
“The court should therefore order Hoft’s counsel to treat Bidgood’s privileged phone records as ‘Recalled Information’ under the Protective Order and to immediately destroy them, which will preserve the status quo while the Court considers Bidgood’s motion to quash the subpoena and any response and reply thereto,” the motion said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe granted the motion in part on July 16, directing Hoft’s counsel not to view the records and to secure the records in a sealed receptacle until the motion to quash is resolved.
Tobin told the Tracker that they were pleased with how quickly the judge acted to protect Bidgood’s records.
“The Attorney General of the United States just announced that the news media will no longer be subpoenaed for leaks investigations,” Tobin said, referencing recent revelations about Department of Justice subpoenas to multiple journalists and news organizations under the Trump administration. “It’s a giant step forward for the protection of reporters’ source materials and the protection of their relationships with sources. And examples like [Bigood’s] in civil litigation point out the need for greater protection under federal law by shield laws and by enforcement of First Amendment rights.”
NBC4 Washington was among multiple media outlets and journalists subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, for testimony in an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy.
NBC4 Washington, which didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment, was issued a 19-page subpoena on May 20, 2021, ordering it to provide deposition testimony via Zoom on June 4.
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, notified the broadcast station of a broad range of possible subjects for the deposition, including: 1) “the ‘hundreds of top-tier media outlets’ which provided ‘extensive coverage to the Charlottesville residents who were showing up to challenge the spectre of white supremacy;’” 2) the lawsuit and all the topics therein; 3) the KKK and 4) multiple activist organizations and at least 28 named individuals, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, both of whom have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from the far-right.
The subpoena also commanded the outlet to turn over documents, videos, photos and communications exchanged by any of its employees or agents in connection with its coverage of the rally, Heyer’s death or the trials of her murderer, James Alex Fields, Jr.
WVIR-TV, NBC4 reporter Julie Carey, WSLS-TV and its reporter Ashley Curtis received nearly identical subpoenas. Attorney Leita Walker, representing all five parties, filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on June 14, describing them as “extremely overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
“[The subpoenas] seek virtually every court filing, police report, email, press release, video, photo or other document that the Non-Party Journalists received from anyone一government sources, witnesses to the events, social media, fellow journalists, wire services, etc.,” Walker wrote in the motion, which was reviewed by the Tracker. “[Hoft] is clearly engaged in a massive and massively inappropriate fishing expedition that, in the case of the Non-Party Journalists, seeks information they obtained in the course of their newsgathering activities.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe ruled in favor of the journalists and outlets, quashing the subpoenas on July 20, citing Hoft’s inadequate pleadings, according to The Daily Progress.
Walker didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.
NBC4 Washington reporter Julie Carey was among multiple journalists and media outlets subpoenaed on May 20, 2021, for testimony in an ongoing lawsuit stemming from the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Hundreds of white nationalists who had flocked to Charlottesville to protest plans to remove a Confederate statue were met by crowds of counterprotesters, Time Magazine reported in 2017, and the resulting violence led Virginia's governor to declare a state of emergency.
Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore alleged that after witnessing and filming the vehicular murder of anti-racism protester Heather Heyer during the Aug. 12 rally, he was subjected to a series of false articles and conspiracy theories and received numerous death threats against him and his family, The Daily Progress reported. He filed a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants 一 including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Alex Jones and his website InfoWars 一 in March 2018.
Hoft, as part of his defense, alleged that coverage of the rally was skewed by a vast conspiracy involving the press and government actors; he issued numerous subpoenas to non-party individuals and government and law enforcement agencies in an apparent effort to uncover the supposed conspiracy.
Carey, who declined for comment when reached by email, was issued a 19-page subpoena on May 20, 2021, ordering her to provide deposition testimony via Zoom on June 4.
The subpoena, reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, notified Carey of a broad range of possible subjects for the deposition, including: 1) “the ‘hundreds of top-tier media outlets’ which provided ‘extensive coverage to the Charlottesville residents who were showing up to challenge the spectre of white supremacy;’” 2) the lawsuit and all the topics therein; 3) the KKK and 4) multiple activist organizations and at least 28 named individuals, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, both of whom have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories from the far-right.
The subpoena also ordered Carey to turn over documents, videos, photos and communications she exchanged in connection with NBC4’s coverage of the rally, Heyer’s death or the trials of her murderer, James Alex Fields, Jr.
NBC4, WVIR-TV, WSLS-TV and its reporter Ashley Curtis received nearly identical subpoenas. Attorney Leita Walker, representing all five parties, filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on June 14, describing them as “extremely overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
“[The subpoenas] seek virtually every court filing, police report, email, press release, video, photo or other document that the Non-Party Journalists received from anyone一government sources, witnesses to the events, social media, fellow journalists, wire services, etc.,” Walker wrote in the motion, which was reviewed by the Tracker. “[Hoft] is clearly engaged in a massive and massively inappropriate fishing expedition that, in the case of the Non-Party Journalists, seeks information they obtained in the course of their newsgathering activities.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Virginia Joel Hoppe ruled in favor of the journalists and outlets, quashing the subpoenas on July 20, citing Hoft’s inadequate pleadings, according to The Daily Progress.
Neither NBC4 nor Walker replied to emailed requests for comment.
Idaho reporter Nate Eaton was subpoenaed on May 10, 2021, to give witness testimony as part of a conspiracy case relating to the deaths of two children that he’s covered extensively.
The news director at the local website EastIdahoNews.com, Eaton has been covering the case of Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell, who are on trial for altering evidence in relation to the killings of Vallow's two children whose remains were found on Daybell's property, according to the site’s news reports.
Eaton posted on Twitter an image of a subpoena that requests his testimony in court on June 9. According to the document on the website of the Idaho judiciary, the subpoena was filed with the county’s deputy clerk by John Prior, an attorney representing the defendants in the case.
Well... pic.twitter.com/9S2szhKLhl
— Nate Eaton (@NateNewsNow) May 11, 2021
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, emailed Prior for comment, but did not receive any response.
The Clerk of District Court who signed the subpoena, Eileen Parker, referred CPJ to Tammie Whyte, the trial court administrator for the Seventh District, who told CPJ that the process for issuing the subpoena was set forth in Idaho’s criminal rule 17. “I can’t speak for the presiding judge as to whether they’re going to enforce the subpoena or not,” she said in a phone interview.
EastIdahoNews.com Managing Editor Nate Sunderland confirmed to CPJ that Eaton was served the subpoena the day after it was filed, on May 11.
“Nate’s been covering this [case] for a year and a half now, and if he was called to the stand, it would really ruin his opportunity to continue covering it,” Sunderland told CPJ. “That’s our biggest concern—our ability to objectively cover this if we’re suddenly part of the story.”
The Tracker documented 31 subpoenas filed to journalists and news organizations in 2020.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation subpoenaed Gannett Company, publisher of USA Today, on April 29, 2021, seeking information about people who had read a story the paper published about a shooting that left two FBI agents dead and three wounded. The FBI then withdrew the subpoena in early June.
The subpoena sought Internet Protocol addresses and "other potentially identifying information ‘for computers or other electronic devices’” used by readers to access a Feb. 2 USA Today story headlined: “FBI identifies 2 agents killed in Florida while serving warrant in crimes against children case.” The subpoena said the information “relates to a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI” regarding its agents, who were shot during an attempt to serve a warrant in a child exploitation case.
In a U.S. District Court filing dated May 28, Gannett attorneys wrote, "in making this unconstitutional demand, the FBI has failed to demonstrate compliance with the United States Attorney General's regulations for subpoenas to the press.” Gannett asked the court to quash the subpoena.
A Politico story about the subpoena noted that “The accusation that the FBI defied the Justice Department’s guidelines for seeking news media records comes as the department is facing criticism from journalists, press freedom advocates and even President Joe Biden for a series of court orders obtained last year in leak investigations.”
On June 5, Keith Becker, deputy chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal division, informed Gannett attorneys that the FBI was withdrawing the subpoena “because the child sexual exploitation offender subject of the investigation has at this time been identified via other means.”
The Department of Justice did not respond to an emailed request from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker for comment.
Journalist Fenit Nirappil was subpoenaed on April 22, 2021, in a lawsuit involving former Chicago police officers for documents related to his work on two stories for the Medill Innocence Project nearly a decade earlier, according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press.
Nirappil, now a journalist for The Washington Post, was a part of a team of Northwestern University students who investigated the conviction of former police officer Ariel Gomez during the 2011-2012 academic year, according to RCFP, which is representing Nirappil. RCFP is a partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
The subpoena was issued by Chicago-based Sotos Law Firm on behalf of four law enforcement officers and officials who are defendants in a federal lawsuit Gomez is pursuing alleging misconduct related to his conviction.
The officers’ legal team sought a broad range of documents from Nirappil related to his undergraduate education, according to a letter RCFP senior attorney Sarah Matthews wrote in response to the subpoena. Matthews is a member of the Tracker’s advisory committee.
Matthews argued in the letter that Nirappil isn’t required to comply with the subpoena, citing First Amendment privilege for journalists.
She also wrote that the subpoena was invalid due to procedural rules. It was improperly served because it was sent through the mail, rather than personally served, she wrote.
The subpoena was also overly broad, including requests for records related to 49 individuals, according to the letter. Matthews wrote that it effectively sought all information related to Nirappil’s undergraduate education.
The subpoena requested Nirappil’s documents by May 5 — an “insufficient” amount of time to reply given the scope of the request, and that he only received the subpoena on May 1, Matthews wrote.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the subject of a subpoena for documents files an objection within a certain window of time, they don’t need to comply with the subpoena, according to Matthews.
She told the Tracker Nirappil wasn’t under any further obligation to respond, unless the attorneys representing the Chicago police officers file a motion in court.
Nirappil didn’t respond to a request for comment. He posted on Twitter about the subpoena on May 10.
“I'm not going to roll over when attorneys for law enforcement come after my reporting notes, even if they were from college a decade ago,” he wrote.
I'm not going to roll over when attorneys for law enforcement come after my reporting notes, even if they were from college a decade ago. Thank you for helping me fight this, @rcfp https://t.co/rF7d7MM3y8
— Fenit Nirappil (@FenitN) May 10, 2021
Sotos Law Firm also didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Unicorn Riot and its reporter Niko Georgiades were subpoenaed on March 17, 2021, by Energy Transfer LP, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, for all documents and communications relating to the nonprofit media organization’s coverage of the pipeline project.
The subpoenas are part of the pipeline company’s legal effort against several environmental groups, including Greenpeace, and activists that protested against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017, according to The Intercept and other outlets.
Energy Transfer demanded all documents including video and audio recordings concerning both actual and planned demonstrations relating to DAPL or Energy Transfer on several specific dates in August through November of 2016, in addition to information about the organization's structure and employees. Georgiades, a Unicorn Riot reporter who covered events at Standing Rock, was separately served a subpoena for similar materials. His subpoena is documented here.
Greenpeace labeled the company’s legal effort a SLAPP suit, which stands for a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence critics, The Intercept reported. The Committee to Protect Journalists has called on Energy Transfer to withdraw the subpoenas. CPJ is a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Energy Transfer didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment from the Tracker.
Freddy Martinez, a member of the Unicorn Riot collective, told the Tracker that its media attorney responded to both subpoenas with a letter invoking their shield privilege, saying "the records that may or may not exist are covered by the law and that we [Unicorn Riot] are not a party to their litigation."
"Our counsel met with their counsel and Energy Transfer expressed continued interest in furthering their subpoena," Martinez added. "However, as far as we know, they haven’t filed anything in court and may be running out of time to do so."
On March 24, 2021, Unicorn Riot launched a legal defense fund to help cover its legal bills, saying it takes seriously its obligation to protect its sources and not yield to demands for its footage and records from companies or the government.
Unicorn Riot and its reporter Niko Georgiades were subpoenaed on March 17, 2021, by Energy Transfer LP, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, for all documents and communications relating to the nonprofit media organization’s coverage of the pipeline project.
The subpoenas are part of the pipeline company’s legal effort against several environmental groups, including Greenpeace, and activists that protested against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017, according to The Intercept and other outlets.
Energy Transfer demanded all documents including video and audio recordings concerning both actual and planned demonstrations relating to DAPL or Energy Transfer on several specific dates in August through November of 2016, in addition to information about the organization's structure and employees. Unicorn Riot’s subpoena is documented here. Georgiades, a Unicorn Riot reporter who covered events at Standing Rock, was separately served a subpoena for similar materials.
Greenpeace labeled the company’s legal effort a SLAPP suit, which stands for a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence critics, The Intercept reported. The Committee to Protect Journalists has called on Energy Transfer to withdraw the subpoenas. CPJ is a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Energy Transfer didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment from the Tracker.
Freddy Martinez, a member of the Unicorn Riot collective, told the Tracker that its media attorney responded to both subpoenas with a letter invoking their shield privilege, saying "the records that may or may not exist are covered by the law and that we [Unicorn Riot] are not a party to their litigation."
"Our counsel met with their counsel and Energy Transfer expressed continued interest in furthering their subpoena," Martinez added. "However, as far as we know, they haven’t filed anything in court and may be running out of time to do so."
On March 24, 2021, Unicorn Riot launched a legal defense fund to help cover its legal bills, saying it takes seriously its obligation to protect its sources and not yield to demands for its footage and records from companies or the government.
Associated Press reporter Keith Ridler was subpoenaed on March 10, 2021, by anti-government activist Ammon Bundy, who was seeking Ridler’s reporting materials and testimony in a criminal case against Bundy in Idaho, the AP reported. An Idaho judge quashed the subpoena on March 15.
Bundy sought the information in a criminal case against him stemming from protests he led against COVID-19 measures at the Idaho Statehouse in August.
Ridler reported on and photographed Bundy’s arrests, according to the AP. The journalist was one of several people Bundy subpoenaed who were at the Statehouse at the time.
The AP filed a motion to quash Bundy’s subpoena on March 11. According to the AP’s report, the news organization argued that the subpoena would be a violation of “Idaho Reporter’s Privilege,” which protects journalists from being compelled to share certain information or testify.
“Subpoenas to members of the media are particularly onerous because they threaten to intrude into the newsgathering process,” AP’s attorneys wrote in the motion. “Being forced to testify or produce evidence in a court case also threatens the independence of a free press and potentially puts journalists at personal risk.”
Bundy, who is representing himself in the case, did not respond to the AP’s motion, the news organization reported.
On March 15, Ada County Magistrate Judge David Manweiler said that Bundy did not demonstrate that his subpoena would have met the criteria to proceed, according to the AP’s story.
Bundy’s trial was set to begin that day, but the defendant was not in attendance because he refused to wear a mask in compliance with court rules, the AP reported.
Bundy subsequently filed a second subpoena seeking reporting materials and testimony from Ridler on May 27, according to an AP spokesperson. That subpoena was also quashed. Find all subpoenas, which are documented separately on the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, here.A spokesperson for the AP declined to comment on the subpoena. The Tracker was not able to reach Bundy, who was found guilty on July 1 of trespassing and obstructing or resisting officers, for comment.
Legal news site Above the Law's publisher, Breaking Media Inc., was subpoenaed on Feb. 1, 2021, amid a trade-secrets dispute between a legal recruiting firm and a former employee, but a New York federal court quashed the subpoena, saying it would be unduly burdensome to the media company.
The suit was brought by legal recruiting firm MWK Recruiting Inc. against former Breaking Media employee Evan Jowers. MWK alleged Jowers "misappropriated trade secrets and breached the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of his employment agreement," according to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Jowers asserted that articles in Above the Law were "improperly critical of him and his counsel" and alleged that this coverage was "orchestrated" by MWK's principal. This prompted the subpoena by MWK demanding that Above the Law produce numerous documents and provide comment regarding the four articles it published.
The opinion and order from the federal court says the Second Circuit "has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information," protecting both confidential and nonconfidential information.
In the order, Judge Katherine Polk Failla said Jowers failed to adequately establish why the qualified privilege may be overcome and that the sought-after information was not of "likely relevance to a significant issue in the case."
Breaking Media declined to comment.
A Freedom of Information Act request by a reporter revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice secretly issued a subpoena in February 2021 to gain information on Guardian reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner’s phone records as part of a leak investigation initiated during the Trump administration.
According to the Guardian, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General secretly issued the subpoena without notifying Kirchgaessner or the Guardian. News of the subpoena came following the release of a redacted report obtained by investigative reporter Jason Leopold detailing the investigations undertaken to identify the DOJ OIG employee responsible for leaking information about the Trump administration’s child separation policy.
Kirchgaessner told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that news of the subpoena caught her off-guard, and it was particularly concerning that the move came from the OIG, the internal watchdog ensuring ethical practices and whistleblower protections across the department.
“This is a tool that is only supposed to be used in extraordinary circumstances,” Kirchgaessner said. “And in this case they were not investigating a breach of classified information or anything involving national security. But they were investigating a leak that led to some career-damaging stories about senior DOJ officials. And I find that highly worrisome.”
This is a story by @Edpilkington. The subpoena that was used here was an administrative subpoena. That means the DOJ went to the telecoms company on its own. No judicial oversight. For an investigation that did not involve national security or classified info. https://t.co/wuT8Ahti4b
— Stephanie Kirchgaessner (@skirchy) May 14, 2022
The DOJ investigation took place during the time Kirchgaessner, the outlet’s investigations correspondent in Washington, D.C., was reporting on the “zero-tolerance” immigration policy in July 2020 and September 2020. In her reporting, Kirchgaessner revealed that a Justice Department official had advised that migrant parents crossing the southern border in the U.S. with children regardless of their age, be prosecuted, effectively separating them. She also reported on private memos and emails that revealed how a federal judge nominee participated in removing a Texas prosecutor after he objected to the separation of migrant children from their families.
DOJ OIG spokesperson Stephanie Logan confirmed to the Tracker that the subpoena was issued in February 2021, a few weeks after President Joe Biden took office. According to the redacted report, officials identified more than 250 phone calls between the suspected leaker and two phone numbers used by Kirchgaessner.
“DOJ OIG issued this subpoena in February 2021 to a telecommunications company to confirm that one specific telephone number already known to investigators from their prior review of the DOJ OIG employee’s phone records in fact belonged to a specific media outlet,” Logan said in a statement. “The subpoena therefore requested, and investigators received, only the information necessary to this purpose, specifically the account holder’s name and address, and the dates of service associated with the number.”
Neither Logan nor the redacted report identified the telecommunications company subpoenaed.
The Guardian’s Editor-in-Chief Katharine Viner condemned the subpoena in a statement to the outlet, calling it “an egregious example of infringement on press freedom and public interest journalism.”
“We will be asking the DoJ urgently for an explanation for why and how this could have occurred, and for an apology,” Viner said. “We will also be seeking assurances that our reporter’s details will be erased from DoJ systems and will not be used for any further infringements of press freedom.”
In the wake of disclosures of multiple secretive subpoenas under Trump’s DOJ, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on July 19, 2021, that he was changing the department’s policies to prevent such seizures of journalists’ records during leak investigations.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include comment from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Investigator General.
This diagram from a redacted government report shows the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to identify the source of media leaks in mid-2020, which led it to obtain a subpoena seeking phone records of a Guardian reporter.
",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'],Unknown,telecom company,Third-party,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,Department of Justice,,, 2021-06-21 15:31:17.674548+00:00,2024-02-29 19:30:19.993104+00:00,Justice Department attempted to seize email records of 4 New York Times reporters,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/justice-department-attempts-to-seize-email-records-of-four-new-york-times-reporters/,2024-02-29 19:30:19.889272+00:00,,LegalOrder object (119),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,"Matt Apuzzo (The New York Times), Adam Goldman (The New York Times), Eric Lichtblau (The New York Times), Michael S. Schmidt (The New York Times)",,2021-01-05,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"The Department of Justice under then-President Donald Trump obtained a court order on Jan. 5, 2021, demanding that the tech company Google secretly turn over the email logs of four New York Times reporters as part of an ongoing leak investigation. The effort, though ultimately dropped, was continued under President Joe Biden’s administration.
The Times reported that two days after it was revealed that the DOJ had obtained the phone records of four reporters — Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt — a gag order was lifted that had prevented a Times attorney from disclosing an ongoing battle over the same reporters’ email records.
According to the lawyer, David McCraw, the Justice Department obtained a 2703(d) court order from a magistrate judge requiring Google, which operates the Times’ email system, to turn over the requested records without informing the newspaper of the disclosure. Google reportedly resisted, saying that to do so would violate the tech company’s contract with the Times.
Google didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment. A spokesperson for the tech company told the Times it doesn’t comment on specific cases, but is “firmly committed to protecting our customers’ data and we have a long history of pushing to notify our customers about any legal requests.”
On March 3, the judge permitted Google to inform McCraw of the effort but required him to sign a nondisclosure agreement barring him from telling Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet or other newsroom leaders: a move which McCraw told the Times was unprecedented. A federal court lifted the order on June 4.
Baquet condemned both presidential administrations in a statement to the newspaper.
“Clearly, Google did the right thing, but it should never have come to this,” Baquet said. “The Justice Department relentlessly pursued the identity of sources for coverage that was clearly in the public interest in the final 15 days of the Trump administration. And the Biden administration continued to pursue it. As I said before, it profoundly undermines press freedom.”
Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley told the Times that, under the Biden administration, the department “voluntarily moved to withdraw the order before any records were produced.” The Biden administration issued a statement that no one at the White House was aware of the gag order until it was lifted.
The revelation about the Times reporters’ email records was the latest in a series of recent disclosures about the Trump administration’s efforts to use the seizure of journalists’ communications to identify leakers or critics of the administration.
CNN reported that DOJ regulations for issuing media subpoenas were changed under the Obama administration in 2015 to require that the attorney general authorize any such legal orders related to journalists’ communications or work products. While the regulations mandated that the journalist and outlet be notified of the seizures, the policy set no clear timetable for notification.
On May 21, 2021, Biden condemned such seizures as “simply, simply wrong,” The Associated Press reported. In keeping with Biden’s sentiments, the DOJ said on June 5 that it would no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations, according to the AP.
“This announcement is a potential sea change for press freedom rights in the United States,” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. “While we’re encouraged to see this announcement ending this invasive and disturbing tactic, the devil is—of course—in the details. The Justice Department must now write this categorical bar of journalist surveillance into its official ‘media guidelines,’ and Congress should also immediately enshrine the rules into law to ensure no administration can abuse its power again.”
FPF is a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker and manages its day-to-day operations.
When reached for comment concerning the newspaper’s push for an explanation from the Justice Department, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha confirmed to the Tracker that publisher A.G. Sulzberger would be meeting with the attorney general and shared a statement from him ahead of that meeting.
“We’re pleased that Attorney General [Merrick] Garland has agreed to this meeting. We hope to use the meeting to learn more about how this seizure of records happened and to seek a commitment that the Department of Justice will no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations,” Sulzberger said.
Garland met with executives from the Times, The Washington Post and CNN on June 14, and affirmed the planned policy changes. While Garland’s comments during the meeting were off the record, the Times reported that Sulzberger was encouraged by Garland’s statements but said he would continue to push the department until the outlets’ concerns were fully addressed.
The New York Times office in the Manhattan borough of New York City in 2020
",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'],Google,tech company,Journalist,2703(d) court order,Federal,None,False,[],,Department of Justice,,, 2021-03-02 20:19:04.831601+00:00,2021-03-02 20:29:53.300925+00:00,Reporter for Tampa Bay Times subpoenaed following investigative report,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-for-tampa-bay-times-subpoenaed-in-ongoing-lawsuit-by-gardaworld/,2021-03-02 20:29:53.230891+00:00,,LegalOrder object (118),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Bethany Barnes (Tampa Bay Times),,2020-12-22,False,Tampa,Florida (FL),27.94752,-82.45843,"On Dec. 22, 2020, Bethany Barnes, an investigative reporter for the Tampa Bay Times, said she was subpoenaed by GardaWorld, a security services company, for documents relating to a series of investigative reports that revealed irregularities in maintenance and safety protocols at the company.
The subpoena was issued in connection to a 2017 lawsuit by GardaWorld in Manatee County, Florida, against the company’s former director of risk management, Christine Bouquin, whom Garda has accused of stealing company records. According to the Times, the subpoena requested all documents and communications between Barnes, Bouquin and Bouquin’s lawyer, Noel McDonell.
In March 2020, the Times published its first investigative story about GardaWorld, describing how the armored truck service the company operates in the U.S. had been neglectful in the training of its drivers and how maintenance requests made by the drivers had largely been ignored. The report quoted Bouquin, who said she had noticed issues in the company’s maintenance and safety system, and alleged that she was terminated a day after she sent an email to her supervisor about the company’s safety issues.
GardaWorld had threatened to sue the Times if it published its story about the company’s safety issues, according to the Times.
In a second report, published in October, the Times found “that Garda lost track of millions of dollars inside its vaults, then concealed the missing money from the banks that were its clients.” The report alleged that Garda also told its employees to downplay the cost of truck accidents in order to misrepresent the company’s value.
In December, Barnes took to Twitter, writing, “Some news: I have been served with a subpoena today.” The tweet also quoted attorney Carol LoCicero, who represents the paper, saying, “The Times would fight any subpoena that attempts to extract information reporters have obtained during the course of their reporting, and we plan to fight this one.”
Some news: I was served with a subpoena today.
— Bethany Barnes (@BetsBarnes) December 23, 2020
“The Times would fight any subpoena that attempts to extract information reporters have obtained during the course of their reporting, and we plan to fight this one.” https://t.co/eKNMwx6Uwt
The outlet also published an article on the subpoena.
Neither Barnes nor LoCicero responded to a request for comment as of press time.
The Department of Justice under then-President Donald Trump attempted to acquire email records of three Washington Post reporters as part of a leak investigation on Dec. 22, 2020.
The day before William Barr stepped down as attorney general, he filed an application for a court order to compel Proofpoint, a cybersecurity firm, to turn over records belonging to Post reporters Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller and Adam Entous, who now works at The New Yorker. The request was part of an attempt to identify who had informed the journalists about conversations between Trump campaign officials and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the Post.
According to the redacted application, classified information was made available to Congress in April 2017 and was published by the Post in the subsequent months.
The DOJ also seized the same journalists' phone records in 2020; the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented that court order here. The Biden Justice Department’s disclosure of the seizures led to the unsealing of court documents about the leak investigation on July 9, 2021.
According to the court docket, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui granted the department’s request for a 2703(d) court order to compel the release of the records. However, the Post reported that while the DOJ did obtain the reporters’ phone logs, it did not succeed in obtaining their email records.
The revelation about the email records was the latest in a series of recent disclosures about the Trump administration’s efforts to use the seizure of journalists’ communications to identify leakers or critics of the administration.
On May 21, President Joe Biden condemned such seizures as “simply, simply wrong” following revelations that CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr’s personal phone and email records were obtained during the Trump administration, The Associated Press reported. In keeping with Biden’s sentiments, the DOJ announced on June 5 that it will no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations, according to the AP. The Post reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland is expected to send a memo formally notifying all federal prosecutors of the ban in mid-July.
The Department of Justice, The Washington Post and the named reporters didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. As it is unclear if the cybersecurity firm Proofpoint ignored or objected to the request for records before the DOJ closed its investigation, the Tracker is marking the status of the subpoena as dropped.
On Dec. 22, 2020, CBS-affiliate station WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vermont, was subpoenaed by the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office in connection with an interview the channel conducted with William Dunn, a man charged with aggravated assault in a December stabbing incident.
In the video clip, published Dec. 10 on the station’s website, WCAX-TV reporter Christina Guessferd summarizes the case and uses clips from her interview with Dunn. In her report, Guessferd says Dunn told her he acted in self-defense, after his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend barged into their apartment and confronted him in a “violent altercation.” In the video clip, Dunn says “I had to fight for my life.”
On Jan. 15, 2021, the station filed a motion to quash the subpoena, citing the Vermont state shield law that protects journalists from compelled disclosure of information and sources. According to the motion, the State’s Attorney’s Office asked the station to provide “any and all footage, including raw and final as well as all videos, notes, sound bites and information obtained from the interview,” as well as “any and all saved messages or other communication records pertaining to Dunn.”
The station’s motion to quash asserts that the information sought in the raw video, notes and other materials subpoenaed from the interview is available to law enforcement from other sources, including four witnesses present at the time of the incident, as well as the defendant. The motion says that the witness statements support Dunn’s claims that the attacker started the altercation. It says the station’s footage, taken a week after the incident, does not capture the fight that led to the charges.
WCAX-TV contends that the State’s Attorney seeks to compel the station to turn over its recordings, despite the availability of other sources; the station’s motion says no special circumstances have been cited that would warrant an exception to the shield law.
The Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office did not respond to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s request for comment.
WCAX-TV’s lawyer Robert B. Hemley declined to speak about the case without the station’s approval, and the station did not respond to a Tracker request for comment.
Tina MacIntyre-Yee, a multimedia journalist at the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York, was called to testify before a grand jury on Dec. 16, 2020, according to an article from her employer, which MacIntyre-Yee verified to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The journalist said that she complied with the subpoena, though did not offer compromising material about her sources.
MacIntyre-Yee has reported on recent civil unrest in Rochester that followed both the death of Goerge Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis police custody, and the disclosure that Daniel Prude, a Black man, died while in Rochester police custody, according to the Democrat & Chronicle.
The subpoena related to MacIntyre-Yee’s reporting on these protests, the Democrat and Chronicle article stated.
During a conversation with CPJ, MacIntyre-Yee said that she was first notified of the subpoena on Dec. 9 in a phone call by the Monroe District Attorney’s office. The DA’s office then sent a copy of the subpoena to MacIntyre-Yee via email.
MacIntyre-Yee said she was concerned about how the subpoena would affect her ability to report on protests.
“I would like to be seen as someone who’s taking pictures of everything that’s happening and videos of everything that’s happening, and I don’t want people to feel intimidated,” she said.
The Monroe County District Attorney’s office told CPJ in an email that they do not comment about Grand Jury subpoenas or testimony.
A judge in California on March 8, 2021, quashed a subpoena for testimony from journalist Kate Cagle about a 2015 interview she conducted as a reporter for the San Francisco Bay Area TV news station KRON 4, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. The San Mateo district attorney’s office had filed the subpoena on Dec. 7, 2020, seeking Cagle’s testimony about an interview she did with a man accused of murder.
Cagle, now a reporter for Spectrum News 1 in Los Angeles, interviewed the defendant in the murder trial, Daniel Contreras, at the San Mateo County Jail on Aug. 9, 2015, one day after Contreras was arrested for allegedly killing a toddler, according to the Post.
During the interview, Contreras said the child fell from his hands, contradicting an earlier statement to police that she had fallen from a table, the Post reported. According to the Post, Contreras also told the journalist he had “made a mistake.”
According to the Post, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said at a court hearing on March 8 that the prosecutor’s office sought testimony from Cagle to confirm that she was working independently from police when she interviewed Contreras. A detective with the Redwood City Police Department was present at the time of the interview and reminded the defendant of his Miranda rights, the Post reported.
Attorneys for Cagle argued that the California Shield law protected the journalist from being compelled to testify.
San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles sided with Cagle, ruling that the prosecutor could not subpoena her to testify.
Wagstaffe’s office and KRON 4 did not respond to a request for comment. Cagle declined to comment.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said on Dec. 9, 2020, that it would not enforce a subpoena issued to BuzzFeed News the previous week. ICE’s subpoena had sought information BuzzFeed gathered in reporting a story on deportation policy.
BuzzFeed’s article, published on Oct. 7, divulged the contents of emails and a memo about ICE plans to implement a Trump administration policy significantly expanding fast-track deportations of undocumented immigrants. The expanded deportation policy was initially blocked in 2019 by a federal judge, but that judge’s injunction was lifted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in June 2020, allowing ICE to begin implementing the wider fast-track deportation program.
BuzzFeed publicly reported on the subpoena, issued Dec. 1, and said it sought information about emails the news organization obtained that had been sent to ICE attorneys. The subpoena demanded BuzzFeed “provide all documentation including, but not limited to: (1) date of receipt, (2) method of receipt, (3) source of document, and (4) contact information for the source of the document.” The subpoena ordered the information be turned over by Dec. 22, 2020, and requested that BuzzFeed not disclose the issuance of the subpoena.
In the article on the subpoena, BuzzFeed News Editor-in-Chief Mark Schoofs said, "BuzzFeed News emphatically rejects any requests for information about possible sources and methods of our reporting.”
On Dec. 9, BuzzFeed reported that ICE would not be enforcing the subpoena.
ICE also issued a statement saying, “In response to the summons, the media outlet subsequently declined to provide details regarding the sources of the unauthorized disclosure of law enforcement sensitive information. At this time, ICE will not enforce the summons and will pursue the investigation through other channels.”
On Nov. 25, 2020, journalist and author Jillian Lauren Shriner was subpoenaed by Samuel Little for “unpublished communications with her sources.” The subpoena was issued in connection to Little’s prosecution in the killing of a woman in San Bernardino, California.
In 2018, Little, who the FBI says is the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history, confessed to some 90 murders committed between 1970 and 2005. Fifty of the confessions made by Little have been verified by law enforcement, according to the FBI.
Shriner started talking to Little after she’d interviewed an Los Angeles Police Department detective who had prosecuted him and suspected him of having committed several additional unsolved murders across the country. In her interviews with Little, who at the time was serving three consecutive life sentences for murdering three women in Los Angeles, he confessed to dozens of additional homicides.
A trial court compelled Shriner to comply with the subpoena. On Dec. 23, Shriner appealed the decision with the California Court of Appeal, stating that “to disclose unpublished communications with her sources flagrantly violates California’s shield laws” and that the decision “disregards the fundamental principle, enshrined in California’s Constitution, that journalists must be independent of the judicial process and able to protect their unpublished information, including communications with sources. The Court of Appeal stayed the trial court’s order.
On Dec. 30, Little, 80, died, rendering the criminal case against him and the subpoena effectively moot. The Court of Appeal, though, has not yet dismissed the case and, on Feb. 2, 2021, granted the public defender’s request for an extension to file its response to Shriner’s petition by March 11.
Neither Shriner nor the public defender’s office responded to a request for comment as of press time.
Journalist Sharon Churcher was subpoenaed for testimony as part a defamation suit related to litigation surrounding accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
As a reporter for the Mail on Sunday in 2011, Churcher published the first in a series of articles wherein Virginia Giuffre, under her maiden name Virginia Roberts, was named as one of the Jane Does central to ongoing litigation against Epstein. The Miami Herald reported in 2018, in a timeline of the case, that in January 2015, Giuffre filed “court papers in Florida claiming that she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew and lawyer Alan Dershowitz when she was underage.”
Dershowitz vehemently denied Giuffre’s allegations, writing to the Herald shortly thereafter: “I never met Roberts; I never had sex with her; she simply made up the entire story for money.”
In April 2019, Giuffre filed a defamation suit against Dershowitz. As part of that suit, Dershowitz subpoenaed Churcher, seeking her testimony about communications with Giuffre; Churcher’s attorney, Laura Handman, responded to the subpoena in November 2020. Dershowitz also filed a countersuit against Giuffre in November.
That same month, Handman filed a pre-motion request to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to quash the subpoena against Churcher, writing, “Although the Subpoena does not specify the precise topics on which Dershowitz intends to question Churcher, in discussions with the undersigned, his counsel made clear that they intend to inquire about her 2011 interviews with Giuffre to determine what, if anything, Giuffre said about her interactions with Dershowitz from 2000-2002. They also stated their contention that emails between Churcher and Giuffre show that Churcher was not acting as a journalist in her interactions with Giuffre.”
The request noted that a previous subpoena had been issued to Churcher by Ghislaine Maxwell, accused of abetting Epstein in sex trafficking of minors and a defendant in a 2016 defamation lawsuit filed by Giuffre, and was quashed that year by the same court, citing New York’s shield law and “First Amendment reporter’s privilege.”
Handman confirmed to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in April 2021 that the matter remains pending.
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.
In July 2016, some four months before the U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks “released a trove of 20,000 emails stolen from the servers of the Democratic National Committee,” according to Vox. How WikiLeaks obtained those emails fueled endless speculation around Seth Rich and his death. The WikiLeaks founder proceeded to imply that Rich may have been the source of the leak, but specified that WikiLeaks does not reveal the identities of any of its sources. The outlet was also subpoenaed over the course of the lawsuit, which the Tracker has documented here.
Assange was taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London when Aaron Rich filed the defamation suit, but during the discovery process, he was expelled from the embassy and arrested by British authorities. He remains imprisoned in the U.K. today.
Status of Subpoena
Pablo Unzueta, a freelance photojournalist and video editor for California State University, Long Beach’s newspaper, the Daily Forty-Niner, was arrested while documenting protests in the South Los Angeles area on Sept. 8, 2020.
Unzueta told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker he was following a group of protesters as they gathered for the fourth consecutive night outside the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department following the fatal shooting of Dijon Kizzee, a Black man, by deputies on Aug. 31.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 8, Unzueta said, deputies declared the protest unlawful and ordered the crowd to disperse. Following the order, Unzueta said he saw deputies firing tear gas and flash-bang grenades into the crowd around the intersection of Normandie Avenue and West Imperial Highway.
Unzueta said officers pushed the crowd north on Normandie as they advanced, and that many of the protesters began splitting off and dispersing.
“I didn’t know the area that well so I made a left into this neighborhood on this very narrow street,” Unzueta said. “The sheriffs would get on the trucks and then the truck would speed up through the street and then they would start firing more [flash-bang grenades] and then more tear gas.”
“I kept ducking behind cars while I’m running so I wouldn’t get hit.”
Unzueta said a few minutes passed as he kept looking for a way to get back to his car, which was parked near the Sheriff’s Department, but realized that he was stuck on a long, narrow block.
Two sheriff’s vehicles pulled up at approximately 9:30 p.m., Unzueta said, and deputies began arresting the demonstrators that remained.
“This was sort of a ‘holy shit’ moment for me, and I immediately identified myself as press just to avoid getting tackled or being shot with a rubber bullet,” Unzueta said.
He said that after a couple of deputies saw his credentials and camera and didn’t stop him, he thought he would be allowed to leave and began to head back the way they had come to return to his vehicle.
“I start walking on the sidewalk and that’s when an officer from up above in the truck said, ‘Hey! Grab that guy!,’” Unzueta said. “Again I yelled, ‘Press, press, press!’ And that’s when the officer...just grabbed me, threw my camera on the ground and ripped my backpack off my back.”
Unzueta told the Tracker he was wearing press credentials from Mt. San Antonio College, where Unzueta used to be a student, and his College Media Association badge, and repeatedly told the deputies to call the newspaper’s adviser.
During the course of his arrest, Unzueta said that officers tightened his metal handcuffs so tightly that he lost all feeling in his hands, and that they called him demeaning names and slurs. Unzueta said deputies then pushed him into the back of a department van, causing him to fall on and rupture multiple pepper balls. The officers left him to struggle to breathe amid clouds of pepper powder, he said.
Unzueta also alleges that some of the officers used their personal cellphones to photograph him and other detainees.
“The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department values the media and highly respects the freedom of the press,” Department spokesperson Deputy Trina Schrader told the Tracker in an emailed statement. “Please be aware an administrative investigation has been launched into the circumstances surrounding this incident. A lieutenant from South Los Angeles Station has been assigned and will be contacting Mr. Unzueta to investigate these allegations.”
Unzueta said deputies seized his iPhone and Nikon D800 camera. He said he was handcuffed for about two hours. He was transported to the South Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station where he was booked at 10:30 p.m., and then transferred to the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in downtown Los Angeles.
Unzueta estimated he was in police custody for 10 or 11 hours. His booking data, reviewed by the Tracker, shows he was released the following day with a citation. A copy of the citation shared with the Tracker shows Unzueta was arrested for unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor, and was ordered to appear in court two days later.
Unzueta said his equipment and cellphone weren’t returned to him upon his release.
The Student Press Law Center, a Tracker partner organization, connected Unzueta with the Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. LAist, part of Southern California Public Radio, reported that the clinic was able to secure the release of Unzueta’s camera, but the memory card — which Unzueta told the Tracker contained two years worth of freelance work — had been removed.
Unzueta said deputies first claimed that the camera hadn’t contained an SD card and then that it may have fallen out when the deputy threw it to the ground during the arrest. Unzueta disputed both of these assertions, and said the design of the camera makes it nearly impossible for the memory card to fall out.
In a letter sent on Unzueta’s behalf, the clinic asked that the cellphone and memory card be returned and for assurance that the case wouldn’t be presented to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office for prosecution, a copy of his arrest report and an apology from the department.
“Sheriff’s deputies had no basis to arrest Mr. Unzueta,” the letter reads. “A truck full of deputies passed by, and a deputy pointed at Mr. Unzueta and said, ‘Get him.’ Mr. Unzueta repeatedly identified himself as a member of the press and as a student journalist, displaying his student press badge, but the deputy who arrested him ignored him.”
Unzueta confirmed to the Tracker that he still hasn’t regained complete feeling in his palms more than two and a half months later, attributing the numbness to the overly tight handcuffs.
The Long Beach Press Telegram reported on Nov. 17 that the department hadn’t responded to the letter, according to one of Unzueta’s lawyers.
“I’ve been photographing protests since the Trayvon Martin protest, which was in 2013 and I was 17 at the time. I’ve been doing this a long time, and I never thought I’d have to experience something like I experienced on September 8th,” Unzueta said.
Unzueta told the Long Beach Post that while he has always had a passion for photography, he was shaken by the incident.
“I don’t feel safe going out anymore,” Unzueta said. “This is the last thing I want to do.”
Livestreamer Hugo Padilla was allegedly struck with crowd-control munitions and assaulted by law enforcement before being arrested while documenting protests in Los Angeles, California, on Sept. 8, 2020. Deputies later obtained a search warrant for one of his cellphones.
Padilla subsequently joined as a plaintiff in a lawsuit with three others in October 2020 against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County and then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Colleen Flynn, an attorney representing Padilla, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that Padilla attended the protest to broadcast it on his YouTube channel, Alien Alphabet, while providing audio narration.
Protesters had gathered outside the South Los Angeles Sheriff's Station following the Aug. 31 fatal shooting of Dijon Kizzee, a Black man, by deputies in a nearby neighborhood.
Flynn said that Padilla began filming the demonstration from the parking lot of a nearby 7-Eleven, and confirmed to the Tracker that throughout the protest Padilla was wearing a black bicycle helmet with “PRESS” written in silver lettering on multiple sides.
Approximately an hour into the protest, deputies declared the protest unlawful and ordered the crowd to disperse. According to the lawsuit, officers began to advance on the demonstrators and shortly after fired crowd-control munitions. The crowd dispersed and many individuals — including Padilla — fled into the neighborhood.
In Padilla’s livestream from the protest, he said that he was attempting to circle around to the far side of the crowd, but as he did, a law enforcement helicopter shined a searchlight on him. Within seconds and without warning, Padilla was shot with a crowd-control munition, he said.
The lawsuit claimed the hard projectile struck Padilla in the knee, knocking him off his bicycle and onto the ground. Deputies then “jumped” on him and one of them punched him in the face, splitting his lip, Flynn said. Padilla was tightly handcuffed — his lawsuit states that restraint marks were still visible weeks later — and forced into the back of a large truck where loose pepper ball munitions caused his eyes to water painfully.
According to Flynn, Padilla had no opportunity to identify himself verbally as press before he was arrested, but he did tell deputies he was a journalist while in the truck and in an interrogation room.
Padilla’s bicycle was seized, as was his personal iPhone, which was booked into evidence and later searched. But a Samsung cellphone Padilla was using to livestream fell from his hand and, his suit claimed, deputies did not retrieve it.
Flynn told the Tracker that she believed deputies deliberately left Padilla’s phone and that of freelance photographer Julianna Lacoste, who is also her client, because they were livestreaming.
“It appears that the deputies that abandoned Mr. Padilla and Ms. Lacoste's cell phones on the street while they were livestreaming did so to get rid of the evidence that may have recorded their actions, including their use of excessive force and violation of my clients' constitutional rights,” Flynn wrote in an email.
Padilla’s lawsuit states that once he arrived at the South Los Angeles Sheriff's Station, some of the officers used personal cellphones to photograph Padilla and the other detainees while laughing. Lacoste and student journalist Pablo Unzueta, who were also arrested that evening, said the same.
Padilla was ultimately released from a county jail in downtown LA midmorning the following day with a citation for failure to disperse. His wallet, headphones and a set of keys — not his — were returned to him; the remainder of his equipment was not. Deputies ultimately returned Padilla’s bicycle in December 2020 and his iPhone in June 2021; his bicycle helmet was never returned.
When Padilla appeared for his hearing date at the Inglewood Courthouse on Sept. 11, 2020, according to his lawsuit, a court clerk told him that no charges had been filed.
Sheriff's Deputy Trina Schrader, a spokesperson for the department, told the Tracker in the days following the protest that an investigation had been launched into the events that day. “The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department values the media and highly respects the freedom of the press,” she added.
The day following the protest, sheriff’s deputies obtained a search warrant for cellphones belonging to more than a dozen individuals, including Padilla. The search warrant and an affidavit in support of the warrant were only released in May 2023, more than 2 1/2 years after the incident, and following an August 2022 motion to unseal filed by the First Amendment Coalition and independent news organization Knock LA.
The media organizations said that the sheriff’s department had fought the release of the materials for more than two years, in violation of California state law and the First Amendment. The release only came after Villanueva was ousted in a November 2022 election and replaced by Robert Luna, who acceded to the unsealing.
Susan E. Seager of the UC Irvine School of Law, who represented Knock LA and FAC in the case, said the timing shows that the department never had a good reason to seal the warrants in the first place.
Photos accompanying the warrant materials included the helmet marked “PRESS,” which Padilla’s attorney confirmed belonged to him. FAC noted in a later statement that police records confirmed that the LASD knew journalists were included as targets, which raises press rights concerns.
“Those photos, along with the fact [the] journalists have said they verbally identified themselves as press, should have put pause on the probe or, at a minimum, prompted the department to make disclosures to the judge to ensure press rights were protected,” the FAC statement said.
David Snyder, executive director of FAC, also commented: “While we are grateful the public can finally see these documents, they should have been able to do so long ago. There can be no real accountability without knowledge – what did the police tell the judge who issued this warrant? Now this crucial question can be answered, and accountability for any unjustified arrest and seizure can at long last begin.”
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include additional details concerning the seizure and return of some of Padilla’s equipment.
Livestreamer Hugo Padilla, extreme left, filmed multiple protests outside a Los Angeles Sheriff’s station in 2020. During a Sept. 8 protest, he claims deputies shot him with a munition, then arrested him and seized his equipment.
",arrested and released,Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,2020-09-09,2020-09-08,True,2:20-cv-09805,['ONGOING'],Civil,returned in part,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,law enforcement,unknown,False,None,None,None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,None,,"Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter 1 year, Black Lives Matter 2020, chemical irritant, protest, shot / shot at",,, 2021-02-05 15:44:02.363569+00:00,2021-05-17 20:19:21.813317+00:00,"Memphis newspaper subpoenaed for photos, videos from July protest",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/memphis-newspaper-subpoenaed-for-photos-videos-from-july-protest/,2021-05-17 20:19:21.774065+00:00,,LegalOrder object (109),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-08-13,False,Memphis,Tennessee (TN),35.14953,-90.04898,"On Aug. 13, 2020, a judge granted a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation request for a subpoena of the Commercial Appeal for photographs and videos taken by the Memphis daily during its coverage of a protest on July 4, 2020. A gag order was also put into effect.
The protest took place outside the home of Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich amid a monthslong surge of demonstrations across the country, sparked by the May death of George Floyd, a Black man, while in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
On July 4, protesters had gathered outside Weirich’s house, calling for her firing, launching fireworks and burning American flags near her property line, the Commercial Appeal reported.
Shortly thereafter, according to the paper, the Memphis Police Department requested that the Commercial Appeal turn over images from its coverage for use in the department’s investigation of the day’s events. The paper did not comply with the request. The following month, the TBI filed a subpoena for the videos and photographs.
The paper reported that it filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Aug. 19, arguing that the state shield law and state precedent protected the images as part of journalistic work product.
“Enforcement of the subpoena in this case would discredit movants as disinterested gatherers of information, would violate their rights under the cited statutory and constitutional provisions, and would have an intimidating effect on them in the reporting of events observed and investigated by them in their capacity as journalists," Lucian Pera, an attorney for the Commercial Appeal, told the paper.
On Aug. 20, attorneys from the state attorney general’s office, representing the TBI, agreed to drop the subpoena and the gag order was lifted.
Neither the TBI nor the Commercial Appeal responded to emails requesting comment.
The New York City Police Department subpoenaed a journalist’s cellphone records as part of a leak investigation, according to the reporter, who asked that their name not be disclosed, citing fear of harming relationships with sources, and a report by the New York Daily News.
On July 14, 2020, the New York-based freelancer who works for the Daily Mail received a letter stating that their phone records had been subpoenaed and used to question a police officer about his alleged contact with the reporter, according to the letter, which was seen by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The letter, which was sent to the reporter by the police officer’s lawyer, stated that the investigation related to leaked information about the arrest of actor Cuba Gooding Jr. in June 2019.
When the journalist’s lawyer, Ron Kuby, sought to obtain a copy of the subpoena from the journalist’s telecom provider, AT&T, the company refused, saying that they do not disclose subpoenas relating to criminal matters.
An NYPD official told the Daily News that the subpoena was issued before the department changed its regulations about acquiring journalists’ phone and social media records earlier this year.
When CPJ called the NYPD to ask about the department’s current policy on issuing subpoenas on journalists, the operator told CPJ to send an email requesting information. CPJ sent an email requesting additional information, but the NYPD did not respond.
In February, the NYPD withdrew a subpoena for data from the Twitter account of New York Post police bureau chief Tina Moore, that was issued under the Patriot Act as part of a leak investigation, as the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documented at the time.
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea later issued an apology for subpoenaing that information, according to an article from the Daily News.
When CPJ called the NYPD for comment, a representative told CPJ to send questions via email. CPJ emailed the police department but did not receive any response.
Jim Greer, AT&T’s assistant vice president for corporate communications, told CPJ in an email that, “Like all companies, we are required by law [to] comply with subpoenas from government and law enforcement agencies.”
Editor’s Note: The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documents subpoenas of journalistic work product or testimony by date the subpoena is issued. Until this subpoena is made available, however, we are logging it by date that the reporter became aware of its existence. That date, and how it affects our category count, may change in the future.
The plaintiff in a defamation suit subpoenaed notes, drafts and confidential source communications used by Zachary Petrizzo, a college student and freelance journalist, in a story Petrizzo reported for the Daily Dot about Republican operative Jack Burkman and his alleged relationship with the plaintiff.
Petrizzo was subpoenaed on June 30, 2020, as part of a defamation case brought by Margaret Howell — a former reporter for RT, a Kremlin-funded news outlet, and Right Side Broadcasting Network, a conservative broadcaster. Howell’s suit alleges that the defendants, Burkman’s stepson and estranged wife, were sources for Petrizzo’s 2019 Daily Dot article: “Jack Burkman, Who Accuses 2020 Candidates of Having Lovers, Has a Few Himself.”
The subpoena, which was reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, ordered Petrizzo to turn over any documents, communications, drafts and notes pertaining to the two defendants and appear in court on July 20, 2020.
A law firm is demanding my confidential source materials. This 21-year-old reporter, service worker, and full-time student has nothing more than a few hundred bucks to pay next month's rent. Please share this tweet and help me fight back.
— Zachary Petrizzo (@ZTPetrizzo) July 5, 2020
Attorneys from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Tracker partner, represented Petrizzo and filed a motion to quash the subpoena on July 28, arguing that the plaintiff had asked for “a staggeringly broad array of documents, records, and information” and that the request violates the reporter’s privilege that Virginia courts recognize based on the First Amendment.
The motion also claimed that the subpoena was a transparent attempt to force disclosure of Petrizzo’s confidential sources for the article. Furthermore, the motion said, Howell did not attempt to obtain records of the communications from either defendant.
Virginia Judicial Circuit Judge Judith Wheat granted the motion to quash on Nov. 2, stipulating that a renewed subpoena could be considered if Howell is able to establish that she has exhausted other means of obtaining the information and that the reason for disclosure is sufficiently compelling to overcome the reporter’s privilege.
“The subpoena was extremely burdensome,” Petrizzo told the Tracker. “Without the legal aid of [RCFP], I most certainly would’ve struggled even more to deal with the legal process on my own.”
A portion of a subpoena issued to freelance journalist Zachary Petrizzo seeking "documents, communications, drafts and notes" for a 2019 article he wrote for the Daily Dot.
",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,,,,, 2020-07-13 17:43:12.347982+00:00,2024-03-10 23:08:58.271910+00:00,"Seattle Police Department subpoenas five news outlets for protest photos, videos",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/seattle-police-department-subpoenas-five-news-outlets-protest-photos-videos/,2024-03-10 23:08:58.163309+00:00,,LegalOrder object (106),"(2020-07-23 10:11:00+00:00) Judge upholds subpoena of five Seattle media organizations, (2020-09-21 16:06:00+00:00) Seattle Police Department drops subpoena of five news outlets for protest photos, videos",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-06-18,False,Seattle,Washington (WA),47.60621,-122.33207,"The Seattle Police Department issued a subpoena to the five largest media organizations in the metro area on June 18, 2020, requesting that each outlet turn over raw photos and video captured during one day of demonstrations.
Protests against police violence have taken place in more than 70 cities across the country, sparked by a video showing a Minneapolis police officer kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, during an arrest on May 25. Floyd was later pronounced dead at a hospital.
In the days following Floyd’s death, Seattle saw both peaceful and violent protests, with Saturday, May 30, being especially turbulent: The Seattle Times reported that 27 people were arrested that day, multiple police vehicles were damaged and burned, stores were looted and police deployed tear gas and other projectiles on protesters.
The legal filing ordered the five outlets — KIRO 7 News, KING 5 News, KOMO 4 News, KCPQ News and the Times — to appear for a hearing on June 29 with all video footage and photographs taken on May 30 from 3:30-5 p.m. within a four block radius.
Representatives from the outlets did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.
According to the subpoena, the police are seeking the images to aid in an ongoing investigation to identify multiple individuals who allegedly stole firearms from police vehicles and one who allegedly committed multiple arsons within that area.
In an affidavit filed with the subpoena, Detective Michael Magan said that four rifles and a semi-automatic pistol were stolen from unmarked vehicles on 6th Avenue, and that six SPD vehicles were “heavily damaged by vandals” and set on fire.
Three of the rifles were recovered that day, two of them with the help of an armed security guard for Fox affiliate KCPQ, Magan said in the affidavit. He added that the other two weapons remained unaccounted for.
On June 29, the outlets filed a joint brief objecting to the subpoena and requesting that it be quashed. In the brief, they argue that the subpoena not only violates the First Amendment and the Washington state shield law, but is also overly broad and places an undue burden on the outlets.
“SPD, acting through outside counsel, has targeted Seattle’s five largest news outlets with an expansive demand for vast amounts of unaired news footage and unpublished news photographs,” Eric Stahl, lawyer for the outlets, wrote in the brief. “The Subpoena is a procedurally irregular, overbroad and impermissible assault on the independence of the press.”
In an amicus brief filed the same day, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press highlighted the dangers of degrading the public’s perception of the media as independent from the government, especially law enforcement.
“Enforcement of the Subpoena could mislead the public into perceiving reporters at protests as a mere arm of law enforcement,” RCFP’s brief states, “thus eroding public trust in the news media and increasing the already-significant risk of physical harm that journalists face when covering protests.”
RCFP, a partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, highlighted the recent case of Arizona journalist Eric Rosenwald, who was repeatedly pushed, punched and kicked by individuals at a demonstration in Tucson who accused him of being “with the police.”
Similarly, the Times reported that one of the outlet’s photographers was punched in the face by an individual at a recent protest, and that newspaper staff members have had to repeatedly explain that they are independent.
As of press time, the judge had not responded to the outlets’ request to quash the subpoena.
Brain Esler, an outside attorney representing the police department, told the Times that no actions will be taken to enforce the subpoena until a July 16 Superior Court hearing and subsequent ruling. Esler did not respond to the Tracker’s emailed request for comment.
A portion of the subpoena demanding raw photos and videos captured by five Seattle-area media outlets during a protest on May 30, 2020.
",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,Institution,None,State,None,False,[],"KCPQ, KING-TV, KIRO-TV, KOMO-TV, The Seattle Times","Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter 1 year, Black Lives Matter 2020, protest",,, 2020-06-20 17:43:35.048750+00:00,2021-05-17 20:21:19.050766+00:00,Ohio prosecutor subpoenas outlet for reporting materials from protest,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/ohio-prosecutor-subpoenas-outlet-reporting-materials-protest/,2021-05-17 20:21:19.007896+00:00,,LegalOrder object (105),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-06-05,False,Cleveland,Ohio (OH),41.4995,-81.69541,"Ohio newspaper The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer and its digital site, cleveland.com, were served a subpoena by the county prosecutor’s office for videos, photos and audio captured by its reporters during recent protests in downtown Cleveland.
Protests have taken place in dozens of cities across the country since late May, sparked by a video showing a Minneapolis police officer kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a black man, during an arrest. Floyd was later pronounced dead at a hospital.
The subpoena, filed on June 5, 2020 by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley’s office, orders the outlet to turn over all recordings and photographs that depict any “potential criminal activity” during the May 30 riots, cleveland.com reported.
It also seeks copies of any recorded interviews with individuals who may have described illegal activities.
Editor Chris Quinn told cleveland.com in an emailed statement that the company is compiling responsive documents before speaking with its attorneys about possible options, but that it intends to turn over all materials already published, as the outlet has done previously.
“I’m always troubled when prosecutors seek to use the work of journalists as evidence in criminal cases because it sends a terrible message to criminals that journalists should be considered part of the criminal justice process,” Quinn said.
“We are not part of the criminal justice process. We are the watchdog of the criminal justice process. I just fear that this kind of thing puts a target on the backs of our reporters, photographers and videographers as they do their jobs.”
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented many assaults of journalists amid the ongoing protests related to Black Lives Matter and police brutality, and at least a dozen journalists who have been assaulted by private individuals. In many of these instances, journalists reported being harassed for capturing video or photos of demonstrators’ faces.
Cleveland.com reported that Cuyahoga County Prosecutor spokesman Tyler Sinclair declined to comment on the subpoena or whether similar subpoenas have been issued to other news outlets, citing the ongoing investigation. Sinclair did not immediately respond to the Tracker’s request for comment.
Ohio shield law protects journalists from disclosing their confidential sources, but this protection does not extend to journalistic work product gathered in the course of reporting, according to the Digital Media Law project.
A Cleveland, Ohio, police officer blocks a road to the city after a mandatory lockdown on June 1, 2020, after days of protests and riots followed the death of George Floyd, a black man, while in police custody in Minneapolis.
",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,['PENDING'],None,None,Institution,None,State,None,False,None,"Cleveland.com, The Plain Dealer","Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter 1 year, Black Lives Matter 2020, protest",,, 2021-04-22 16:29:23.522140+00:00,2023-03-25 23:55:22.118311+00:00,CNN ordered to produce source communications in defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/cnn-ordered-to-produce-source-communications-in-defamation-lawsuit/,2023-03-25 23:55:21.963819+00:00,,LegalOrder object (102),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-05-19,False,West Palm Beach,Florida (FL),26.71534,-80.05337,"The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida upheld a trial court’s May 2020 decision ordering CNN to produce emails and text messages with a source for a 2015 investigation.
The network’s investigative report focused on the pediatric heart surgery program at St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The report said that infants who underwent open heart surgery at St. Mary's had a mortality rate three times higher than the national average.
After the story ran, Dr. Michael Black, head of the hospital’s heart surgery unit, filed a lawsuit in 2016, alleging he had been defamed and asserting that “the preconceived goal of the June 1, 2015 article and video report was to manufacture an outrageous, headline-grabbing story.”
The lawsuit named six defendants, including CNN lead reporter Elizabeth Cohen; anchor Anderson Cooper; producer John Bonifield and employee Dana Ford; as well as Kelly Robinson, who was the key source for the CNN stories and “was motivated to defame respondent because of her association with another children’s hospital and surgeon,” the lawsuit charged.
During the discovery phase of the trial, plaintiff Black learned that a substantial amount of communication occurred between Robinson and the CNN defendants. The plaintiff sought the communications from Robinson, but she testified that she had deleted the emails and text messages in order to keep them confidential. Subsequently, Black sought the same communications from the CNN defendants.
CNN argued that the correspondence was shielded by Florida laws that reporters are not required to reveal the identity of sources, according to The Palm Beach Post.
But in May 2020 a trial court ruled that exceptions in the shield law applied in this case. It ordered CNN to turn over its communications with Robinson and noted that it “found a compelling interest for disclosure because of the unique circumstances of the case: 1) the need for the defamation plaintiff to prove malice; 2) the centrality of Robinson’s role as a source of CNN’s reporting; and 3) the fact that Robinson, a co-defendant, deleted her own copies of the communications and was not protected by journalist privilege.”
That decision was upheld on Oct. 7, by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled that “while the journalist privilege must be protected, it is a qualified privilege.”
Neither CNN’s lawyers nor Black’s counsel responded to a request from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker for updated information or comment on the case.
The Center for Investigative Reporting, a California-based nonprofit that publishes investigative reporting on the revealnews.org site, was subpoenaed on May 14, 2020, for documents and unpublished information relating to its 2017 article, All Work. No Pay.
The article, a version of which also appeared on the Reveal podcast, noted that courts nationwide increasingly are sending non-violent offenders into drug rehabilitation programs as an alternative to serving time in prison. According to the investigation, some rehab programs essentially serve as work camps for for-profit companies.
Reveal’s investigation focused on one program that it said fit that profile: Christian Alcoholics & Addicts in Recovery, or CAAIR, a long-term residential drug and alcohol recovery program in Oklahoma that provided workers for Simmons Foods Inc., a for-profit chicken processing company in Oklahoma. Residents of CAAIR worked for Simmons Foods in conditions that amounted to indentured servitude, Reveal alleged in its report.
After the Reveal report was published, former residents of CAAIR, who had entered the program through Oklahoma's drug courts, sued CAAIR and Simmons Foods. The lawsuit, filed by the former residents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in October 2017, alleged that they were provided no rehabilitative treatment at CAAIR but were required to work in excess of 40 hours a week for Simmons. The lawsuit charged that they worked in unpaid, dangerous conditions, under the constant threat of being sent to prison if their work was deemed unsatisfactory.
In May 2020, lawyers for Simmons moved to subpoena The Center for Investigative Reporting, to gain access to documents and unpublished material that were part of the Reveal report. Lawyers for the outlet objected, arguing that the requested materials were privileged information under California and Oklahoma journalist shield laws.
On Oct. 2, 2020, lawyers for Simmons moved to compel compliance with the subpoena. The Center for Investigative Reporting subsequently made a motion to quash the subpoena.The court never ruled on the motion to quash the subpoena because on Dec. 10 it dismissed the workers’ lawsuit against Simmons and CAAIR.
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.
Fairbanks wrote multiple articles about Aaron Rich and the possible “WikiLeaks connection” for Big League Politics in 2017. She was also subpoenaed in January 2020 in a related defamation lawsuit brought by Butowsky against NPR, a case the Tracker documented here.
Status of Subpoena
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
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.
Fox News published an article written by Malia Zimmerman in May 2017 that reported on the conspiracy surrounding Seth Rich’s death. The outlet retracted the article a week later. Both Zimmerman and Fox reporter Adam Housley were also subpoenaed during the course of litigation, which the Tracker documented separately.
Status of Subpoena
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.
Isikoff hosted a six-episode podcast on the case titled “Conspiracyland,” which explored the motivations and methods used to propel the conspiracy theories surrounding Seth Rich’s death.
Status of Subpoena
Arrest warrants were issued on April 6, 2020, for two journalists after they visited Liberty University to cover the school's decision to invite students back to campus following spring break during the coronavirus pandemic.
Virginia Magistrate Kang Lee signed the misdemeanor arrest warrants, which were sought by the Liberty University Police Department against ProPublica's Alec MacGillis, who wrote a March 26 report about students who returned to the university's Lynchburg, Virginia, campus, and Julia Rendleman, a freelance photographer on assignment for The New York Times whose photos accompanied a March 29 story in the newspaper. A warrant was not issued for the author of the Times piece, Elizabeth Williamson, as university officials had not located eyewitnesses placing her on campus, University President Jerry Falwell Jr. told The Associated Press.
Falwell has faced criticism of downplaying the risk posed by the coronavirus and being slow to halt in-person classes at the school. Around 1,000 students remain on campus. In MacGillis' ProPublica piece, "What’s It Like on One of the Only University Campuses Still Open in the U.S.?" he describes many examples of students on campus not adhering to social distancing guidelines and students and faculty worried about their personal safety.
The decision whether to prosecute will be up to Lynchburg Commonwealth’s Attorney Bethany Harrison, according to the AP. "Once I receive copies of the served warrants, obtain reports from the Liberty University Police Department, conduct any necessary follow up investigation, and thoroughly research the applicable statutes and case law, I will make a final decision about how to proceed," Harrison said in a news release. Under Virginia law criminal trespassing is a class one misdemeanor, carrying a sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
"We have heard nothing about this warrant from either Liberty or any authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia," ProPublica President Richard Tofel wrote in an email to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. "We have also still never heard any suggestion from Liberty that anything in our story was factually inaccurate. We continue to believe this was a story of significant public interest about the greatest public health crisis of our time."
Eileen Murphy, a Times spokesperson, decried the decision to seek a warrant for someone taking photos for a news story in a statement to the Lynchburg News & Advance. "We are disappointed that Liberty University would decide to make that into a criminal case and go after a freelance journalist because its officials were unhappy with press coverage of the university's decision to reopen campus in the midst of the pandemic," Murphy said.
Falwell announced the warrants in an April 8 appearance on the Todd Starnes radio show and accused the reporters of putting students at risk by coming onto campus from known hot spots.
"To us it's so hypocritical for them to come to a campus that is doing everything right — social distancing, take-out food only, protecting our students who have no place else to go and no classes — and to come on our campus from New York or Washington or wherever the hotspot is that they come from and put our students at risk," he said.
Falwell shared a letter with the Washington Examiner that Liberty University lawyers have sent to the general counsel of the Times seeking a retraction.
Liberty University has been roundly criticized by press freedom advocates for obtaining the warrants.
Katie Townsend, legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that journalists should not face retaliation or threats of criminal penalties for routine newsgathering.
“These arrest warrants appear to be intended to harass journalists who were simply, and rightly, doing their jobs — reporting on the impact of Liberty University’s decision to partially reopen during a pandemic — and to intimidate other reporters from doing the same type of reporting," Townsend said.
The Virginia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists also issued a statement, writing, “The journalists were reporting about a health crisis of public interest and importance, and doing so in a professional and responsible manner. By pursuing criminal charges, Liberty University has cast a chilling effect on newsgathering activities vital to a free and democratic society.”
The Washington Post editorial board weighed in on April 12, comparing the move against the journalists as a tactic favored by authoritarian strongmen abroad. "But it is more than a little jarring to see this tactic of criminalizing journalism being employed in the United States — and by a university whose name celebrates American freedom," the editorial said.
The AP also reported that a Liberty University campus security officer asked one of its photographers to leave campus and delete the photos he had taken there on March 24. After speaking to his supervisor, the photographer complied, a decision the AP now says was incorrect. “We don’t delete photos or any other material at the request of an individual law enforcement officer,” said Sally Buzbee, the AP’s executive editor and senior vice president. “We try to fight such orders legally.”
Portions of two trespassing warrants against a ProPublica reporter and a New York Times freelance photographer following coverage of Liberty University's decision to remain partially open during the COVID-19 pandemic.
",charged without arrest,Liberty University Police Department,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,coronavirus,,, 2021-04-29 20:07:01.590633+00:00,2024-02-29 19:45:04.057793+00:00,Liberty University obtains trespassing warrant against ProPublica reporter,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/liberty-university-obtains-trespassing-warrant-against-propublica-reporter/,2024-02-29 19:45:03.892193+00:00,trespassing (charges dropped as of 2020-05-15),LegalOrder object (97),(2020-05-15 15:06:00+00:00) Criminal charges against two journalists dropped,"Arrest/Criminal Charge, Subpoena/Legal Order",,,,Alec MacGillis (ProPublica),,2020-04-06,False,Lynchburg,Virginia (VA),37.41375,-79.14225,"Arrest warrants were issued on April 6, 2020, for two journalists after they visited Liberty University to cover the school's decision to invite students back to campus following spring break during the coronavirus pandemic.
Virginia Magistrate Kang Lee signed the misdemeanor arrest warrants, which were sought by the Liberty University Police Department against ProPublica's Alec MacGillis, who wrote a March 26 report about students who returned to the university's Lynchburg, Virginia, campus, and Julia Rendleman, a freelance photographer on assignment for The New York Times whose photos accompanied a March 29 story in the newspaper. A warrant was not issued for the author of the Times piece, Elizabeth Williamson, as university officials had not located eyewitnesses placing her on campus, University President Jerry Falwell Jr. told The Associated Press.
Falwell has faced criticism of downplaying the risk posed by the coronavirus and being slow to halt in-person classes at the school. Around 1,000 students remain on campus. In MacGillis' ProPublica piece, "What’s It Like on One of the Only University Campuses Still Open in the U.S.?" he describes many examples of students on campus not adhering to social distancing guidelines and students and faculty worried about their personal safety.
The decision whether to prosecute will be up to Lynchburg Commonwealth’s Attorney Bethany Harrison, according to the AP. "Once I receive copies of the served warrants, obtain reports from the Liberty University Police Department, conduct any necessary follow up investigation, and thoroughly research the applicable statutes and case law, I will make a final decision about how to proceed," Harrison said in a news release. Under Virginia law criminal trespassing is a class one misdemeanor, carrying a sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
"We have heard nothing about this warrant from either Liberty or any authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia," ProPublica President Richard Tofel wrote in an email to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. "We have also still never heard any suggestion from Liberty that anything in our story was factually inaccurate. We continue to believe this was a story of significant public interest about the greatest public health crisis of our time."
Eileen Murphy, a Times spokesperson, decried the decision to seek a warrant for someone taking photos for a news story in a statement to the Lynchburg News & Advance.
"We are disappointed that Liberty University would decide to make that into a criminal case and go after a freelance journalist because its officials were unhappy with press coverage of the university's decision to reopen campus in the midst of the pandemic," Murphy said.
Falwell announced the warrants in an April 8 appearance on the Todd Starnes radio show and accused the reporters of putting students at risk by coming onto campus from known hot spots.
"To us it's so hypocritical for them to come to a campus that is doing everything right — social distancing, take-out food only, protecting our students who have no place else to go and no classes — and to come on our campus from New York or Washington or wherever the hotspot is that they come from and put our students at risk," he said.
Falwell shared a letter with the Washington Examiner that Liberty University lawyers have sent to the general counsel of the Times seeking a retraction.
Liberty University has been roundly criticized by press freedom advocates for obtaining the warrants.
Katie Townsend, legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that journalists should not face retaliation or threats of criminal penalties for routine newsgathering.
“These arrest warrants appear to be intended to harass journalists who were simply, and rightly, doing their jobs — reporting on the impact of Liberty University’s decision to partially reopen during a pandemic — and to intimidate other reporters from doing the same type of reporting," Townsend said.
The Virginia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists also issued a statement, writing, “The journalists were reporting about a health crisis of public interest and importance, and doing so in a professional and responsible manner. By pursuing criminal charges, Liberty University has cast a chilling effect on newsgathering activities vital to a free and democratic society.”
The Washington Post editorial board weighed in on April 12, comparing the move against the journalists as a tactic favored by authoritarian strongmen abroad. "But it is more than a little jarring to see this tactic of criminalizing journalism being employed in the United States — and by a university whose name celebrates American freedom," the editorial said.
The AP also reported that a Liberty University campus security officer asked one of its photographers to leave campus and delete the photos he had taken there on March 24. After speaking to his supervisor, the photographer complied, a decision the AP now says was incorrect. “We don’t delete photos or any other material at the request of an individual law enforcement officer,” said Sally Buzbee, the AP’s executive editor and senior vice president. “We try to fight such orders legally.”
Portions of two trespassing warrants by Liberty University against two journalists following their coverage of the university's decision to remain partially open during the coronavirus pandemic
",charged without arrest,Liberty University Police Department,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,[],,coronavirus,,, 2021-10-21 17:33:58.985246+00:00,2023-07-05 18:30:15.626438+00:00,Judge quashes subpoena for Fortune magazine reporter’s notes from profile of Theranos ex-CEO,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/judge-quashes-subpoena-for-fortune-magazine-reporters-notes-from-profile-of-theranos-ex-ceo/,2023-07-05 18:30:15.517657+00:00,,"LegalOrder object (94), LegalOrder object (95), LegalOrder object (96)",,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Roger Parloff (Fortune ),,2020-03-26,False,San Jose,California (CA),37.33939,-121.89496,"A California magistrate judge quashed a subpoena on Oct. 14, 2021, seeking reporting notes, materials and testimony from reporter Roger Parloff as part of a criminal trial. The subpoena, issued March 26, focused on notes and audio recordings in relation to his June 2014 Fortune magazine profile of Elizabeth Holmes, then-CEO of Theranos.
Parloff was subpoenaed by Holmes’ defense team during her criminal fraud case for allegedly defrauding patients and investors of Theranos, a start-up technology company that claimed to have developed a device that could run blood tests with a microscopic amount of blood.
Holmes and her business partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, were federally indicted on June 14, 2018, and charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Holmes’ jury trial started on Sept. 8, 2021.
Parloff, who wrote in a column that his profile helped “raise to prominence the inventor-entrepreneur,” became a key witness for federal prosecutors who used his Fortune magazine reporting to demonstrate how Holmes misled investors. More than a year after publishing the profile, Parloff published a correction to the article in 2015, noting the misleading statements Theranos had made to him.
According to Markets Insider, Parloff already agreed to testify in the trial. He provided notes and transcripts of his 2014 interview with Holmes to federal prosecutors and Holmes’ defense team, but the subpoena, to appear in court on Sept. 7, 2021, demanded he turn over additional reporting notes from other sources he interviewed for the profile.
Parloff’s lawyer, David S. Korzenik, challenged the request, arguing it was a “fishing expedition” and violated Parloff’s reporter’s privilege. Korzenik did not respond to a request for comment.
“The trial is not about Mr. Parloff’s state of mind. It’s not a libel case against his subsequent article in which he corrected his first,” Korzenik said during the hearing. “He can only testify as to what Ms. Holmes told him.”
According to Law360, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins agreed with Parloff’s request to quash the subpoena, saying that the subpoena was insufficient because it speculated about what Parloff’s notes contained, adding that granting it could prolong the trial.
Illinois-based government watchdog blog Edgar County Watchdogs received a second subpoena for communications and documents relating to articles involving an ambulance service operating in Effingham County, Illinois, on March 25, 2020.
Edgar County Watchdogs received the first subpoena as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by Lakeside EMS, LLC, against the county in August 2019. That lawsuit was dismissed in September pending the results of a state case brought against the ambulance service by Effingham County. As a result, the subpoena was dropped.
The most recent subpoena was filed as part of the state suit, and is identical to the first: It orders the Edgar County Watchdogs to produce communications or documents exchanged with Lakeside CEO Jerrod Estes, as well as any “employee or agent” of Lakeside or the county. It also orders the turnover of copies of articles written or generated relating to Effingham County, county Board Chairman Jim Niemann or Lakeside.
Edgar County Watchdogs co-founder and reporter John Kraft told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that they planned to contest the subpoena under Illinois’ reporter’s privilege law.
Kirk Allen, the blog’s other co-founder and reporter, told the Tracker in September 2019 that Edgar County Watchdogs had been pursuing a Freedom of Information Act violation claim against the county for two years, pressing for the release of documents related to the ambulance service investigation.
Attorneys for Effingham County Philip Lading and Zachary Merkle did not respond to requests for comment.
According to emails reviewed by the Tracker, the county’s attorneys dropped the subpoena without prejudice on April 7, after the blog’s lawyer informed them that they had not complied with the “special witness” doctrine. The doctrine requires that the party seeking testimony must first state the specific testimony the reporter is expected to give and demonstrate how it is not only relevant, but necessary to the party’s case.
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 multiple subpoenas for the group’s Dropbox contents. While the latter two were dropped in February and July 2019, a motion to quash the former is still pending.
A portion of the subpoena demanding work product from Edgar County Watchdogs
,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'],None,None,Institution,None,State,None,False,None,Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2021-04-16 02:29:39.179654+00:00,2022-04-06 15:46:59.132760+00:00,WikiLeaks subpoenaed in defamation lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/wikileaks-subpoenaed-in-defamation-lawsuit/,2022-04-06 15:46:59.084852+00:00,,LegalOrder object (92),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-03-13,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.
In July 2016, some four months before the U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks “released a trove of 20,000 emails stolen from the servers of the Democratic National Committee,” according to Vox. How WikiLeaks obtained those emails fueled endless speculation around Seth Rich and his death. Assange was also subpoenaed over the course of the lawsuit, which the Tracker has documented here.
Status of Subpoena
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.
Hersh, who was investigating Seth Rich’s death, contacted Butowsky during the course of his reporting. Butowsky recorded one call between the pair, without Hersh’s knowledge, in which the investigative journalist said that he’d heard about an FBI report that said that Rich had contacted WikiLeaks to sell the DNC emails. Hersh later told NPR that he was fishing for information from Butowsky, and that he never published about the case because the claims could not be proved.
Status of Subpoena
On Feb. 21, 2020, the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, quashed a subpoena issued to WRIC-TV investigative reporter Kerri O’Brien that sought a voicemail the journalist had received during the course of reporting.
Neither O’Brien nor WRIC responded to requests for comment as of press time.
The subpoena was sought as part of a lawsuit Marathon Resource Management Group, a facilities management company based in Ashland, had filed in 2019 against one of its subcontractors, Fresh Cuts Lawn Care Inc., alleging that it had made disparaging statements to the news media and on Facebook about Marathon engaging in unfair business practices and not paying the workers it contracted.
O’Brien filed a motion to quash the subpoena, citing reporter’s privilege.
In its finding, the court stated: “Even assuming that this voicemail would be relevant because it goes to the publication element of the Plaintiff’s defamation claim, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy their burden as to the other two prongs of the qualified privilege. Specifically, the information sought by the Plaintiff can be obtained by alternative means, namely the testimony of the Defendant. Further … the evidence sought by the subpoena of Ms. O’Brien is not compelling because publication can be established through other mechanisms.”
A federal judge ruled on Aug. 3, 2020, that WMMB-TV CBS2 President and General Manager Derek Dalton must comply with a subpoena for communications and unedited audio and video recordings of interviews with a woman who alleged Chicago, Illinois, police officers illegally raided her home.
In 2018, investigative reporter Dave Savini created a series of stories for the CBS affiliate, highlighting allegations that the Chicago Police Department conducted illegal searches of residents’ homes. In one segment, Savini interviewed South Side resident Ebony Tate, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Chicago and a group of police officers after a mistaken 2018 search on her home. According to the Chicago Tribune, body camera footage captures officers openly questioning if they had the right place.
CBS2 received two subpoenas — one for Dalton and the other for Savini — from lawyers for the officers on Feb. 12, 2020, seeking any and all notes, documents and communications related to interviews with Tate and five other interview subjects. The subpoena also demanded “outtake” footage, or recordings that were not released to the public, from the interviews.
CBS2 objected to the subpoena on Feb. 26, and on Aug. 3, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert of the Northern District of Illinois denied the outlet’s bid to block it.
In Gilbert’s ruling, he disagreed with CBS that producing the requested materials placed an “undue burden” on the station, finding that the unedited footage and other statements by Tate are “at the very heart of this litigation” and “clearly relevant” to the claims in Tate’s civil rights lawsuit. The recordings were made with the expectation that they might be shown to the public, Gilbert said, without expectation of anonymity.
The judge did quash the portion requesting off-camera and unpublished communications between CBS2, Savini and the interviewees.
CBS2 declined to comment on the ruling or whether the station would file an appeal. Al Hofield Jr., who represented Tate in her federal suit, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an email that federal law tends to have fewer protections for journalists’ sources than state shield laws, and he felt the judge followed the law.
Lawyers for the officers named in Tate’s lawsuit, who issued the subpoenas, did not respond to requests for comment.
A portion of the subpoena issued to CBS2 President and General Manager Derek Dalton on Feb. 12, 2020, seeking unedited audio and video recordings of his interviews with a woman suing the City of Chicago and multiple police officers.
",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,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2023-04-20 19:51:06.232360+00:00,2023-07-05 18:33:56.839796+00:00,Chicago CBS2 reporter subpoenaed for aired and unpublished footage,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/chicago-cbs2-reporter-subpoenaed-for-aired-and-unpublished-footage/,2023-07-05 18:33:56.740596+00:00,,LegalOrder object (210),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Dave Savini (WBBM-TV),,2020-02-12,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"A federal judge ruled on Aug. 3, 2020, that WMMB-TV CBS2 investigative reporter Dave Savini must comply with a subpoena for communications and unedited audio and video recordings of interviews with a woman who alleged Chicago, Illinois, police officers illegally raided her home.
In 2018, Savini created a series of stories for the CBS affiliate, highlighting allegations that the Chicago Police Department conducted illegal searches of residents’ homes. In one segment, Savini interviewed South Side resident Ebony Tate, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Chicago and a group of police officers after a mistaken 2018 search on her home. According to the Chicago Tribune, body camera footage captures officers openly questioning if they had the right place.
CBS2 received two subpoenas — one for Derek Dalton, in his role as president and general manager of CBS2, and the other for Savini — from lawyers for the officers on Feb. 12, 2020, seeking any and all notes, documents and communications related to interviews with Tate and five other interview subjects. The subpoena also demanded “outtake” footage, or recordings that were not released to the public, from the interviews.
CBS2 objected to the subpoena on Feb. 26, and on Aug. 3, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert of the Northern District of Illinois denied the outlet’s bid to block it.
In Gilbert’s ruling, he disagreed with CBS that producing the requested materials placed an “undue burden” on the station, finding that the unedited footage and other statements by Tate are “at the very heart of this litigation” and “clearly relevant” to the claims in Tate’s civil rights lawsuit. The recordings were made with the expectation that they might be shown to the public, Gilbert said, without expectation of anonymity.
The judge did quash the portion requesting off-camera and unpublished communications between CBS2, Savini and the interviewees.
CBS2 declined to comment on the ruling or whether the station would file an appeal. Al Hofield Jr., who represented Tate in her federal suit, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an email that federal law tends to have fewer protections for journalists’ sources than state shield laws, and he felt the judge followed the law.
Lawyers for the officers named in Tate’s lawsuit, who issued the subpoenas, did not respond to requests for comment.
A portion of the subpoena issued to CBS2 investigative reporter Dave Savini on Feb. 12, 2020, seeking unedited audio and video recordings of his interviews with a woman suing the City of Chicago and multiple police officers.
",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,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2020-02-26 18:41:35.766135+00:00,2023-07-05 18:35:28.807069+00:00,"Subpoena issued for watchdog blog’s documents, communications",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-issued-for-watchdog-blogs-documents-communications/,2023-07-05 18:35:28.689783+00:00,,LegalOrder object (88),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-02-07,False,Stark County,Illinois (IL),None,None,"Illinois-based government watchdog blog Edgar County Watchdogs was subpoenaed on Feb. 7, 2020, for documents and communications relating to coverage of the Stark County board and sheriff.
Former Stark County Board Vice-Chairman Fulvio Zerla brought a lawsuit against the county and Sheriff Steve Sloan, accusing Sloan of violating his civil rights. The county is part of the larger Peoria metropolitan area.
Zerla’s complaint, which was reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, also alleges that Sloan paid Edgar County Watchdogs to attend a board meeting in June 2017 to “disrupt” the proceedings.
Edgar County Watchdogs co-founder John Kraft flatly denied Zerla’s accusations and that they had been paid at any time.
“All we did was attend the meeting and we bring our video camera with us everywhere we go,” Kraft told the Tracker. “We attended the meeting and we told the board that they didn’t comply with the Illinois county code requirement to post about the meeting in the newspaper, and the sheriff came and shut the meeting down.”
The subpoena orders Edgar County Watchdogs to produce documents, notes, photographs and communications relating to three board meetings in mid-2017, the Sheriff Department’s budget, plaintiff Zerla, former board Chairwoman Coleen Magnussen and defendant Sloan.
Zerla’s attorney did not immediately respond to the Tracker’s request for comment.
Kraft told the Tracker that their attorney is filing for an extension on the Feb. 27 deadline for producing the documents, and they intend to fight the production of any documents.
The Tracker has documented multiple other subpoenas involving Edgar County Watchdogs, including a subpoena for their communications and documents relating to the College of DuPage and two subpoenas for the group’s Dropbox contents.
A portion of the subpoena requesting communication from the Illinois watchdog group 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,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,Edgar County Watchdogs,,,, 2020-03-03 20:30:36.786565+00:00,2023-07-05 20:47:19.670693+00:00,Journalist subpoenaed for communications in ongoing defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-subpoenaed-communications-ongoing-defamation-suit/,2023-07-05 20:47:19.543659+00:00,,LegalOrder object (87),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Cassandra Fairbanks (Gateway Pundit),,2020-01-29,False,Sherman,Texas (TX),33.63566,-96.60888,"As part of an ongoing defamation lawsuit between NPR and Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, the public media company subpoenaed Gateway Pundit reporter Cassandra Fairbanks on Jan. 29, 2020.
In June 2018, Butowsky filed a lawsuit against NPR, its reporter David Folkenflik and several editorial staff members. The $57 million defamation suit stems from the outlet’s reporting on a lawsuit filed against Butowsky by a former Fox News contributor and Butowsky’s involvement in propelling a conspiracy involving Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered in July 2016.
Isabel Lara, executive director of media relations for NPR, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that Butowsky listed Fairbanks as a witness during the course of discovery.
“We therefore have to ask for information to see whether his claims about her involvement are true,” Lara said.
The subpoena requests all documents related to and communications with a number of individuals, including journalists Oliver Darcy, Seymour “Sy” Hersh, Adam Housley, Lara Logan, Kerry Picket, Ellen Ratner and Malia Zimmerman; America First Media and its founder Matt Couch; WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange; and “Fox News or any of its owners, representatives, employees, or agents.”
Fairbanks tweeted that she had never heard of, let alone communicated with, some of the individuals listed.
NPR, a news organization funded by taxpayers, subpoenaed me for my conversations with Julian Assange and a whole host of other people, including journalists. Some of whom I’ve never even heard of.
— Cassandra Fairbanks 🕊⏳ (@CassandraRules) February 2, 2020
The subpoena also requests that Fairbanks turn over all documents or communications concerning the investigation in the murder of Rich, the 2016 leak of DNC emails or any of the lawsuits connected to the conspiracy surrounding the DNC staffer’s death. In one of these lawsuits, Seth Rich’s brother, Aaron Rich, subpoenaed Twitter for account information for Fairbanks and numerous others.
Fairbanks told the Tracker that she was shocked when she received the subpoena.
“I thought, ‘Wow, they’re trying to get my source material, that’s crazy,’” Fairbanks said.
In an emailed response to the subpoena shared with the Tracker, Fairbanks’s attorney Ronald Coleman wrote that the subpoena requested work product protected under the District of Columbia’s reporter shield law.
“For this reason no documents or other things will be produced pursuant to the subpoena,” Coleman wrote. Fairbanks told the Tracker that to her knowledge NPR’s attorneys have not responded.
Lara, NPR’s media relations director, said the outlet’s lawyers are discussing with Coleman whether there is non-privileged information that could be disclosed.
“We do not intend to seek information that is in fact protected by a journalistic privilege or other privilege,” she said.
Fairbanks told the Tracker that the subpoena has shaken the confidence of her sources. “I’ve had people who’ve given me things for stories before reaching out and saying, ‘I think I would fall under this subpoena because we’ve talked about WikiLeaks. Please don’t give it to them,’” Fairbanks said.
“They’ve been panicking. So, obviously they’re not giving me anything now, nobody is,” she added.
In February 2020, NPR filed a motion to bring sanctions against Butowsky and his lawyers and to dismiss the case, alleging that they had knowingly been misleading or lied in court filings that contributed to the court’s initial decision against dismissing.
“Butowksy brought this lawsuit against NPR in response to truthful but unwanted press about a lawsuit that had been filed against him,“ the motion reads.
The case is currently scheduled to go to trial in mid-2021.
A portion of the subpoena requesting documents, communications from reporter Cassandra Fairbanks.
",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,None,,,,, 2021-02-09 17:41:50.583074+00:00,2021-02-09 17:41:50.583074+00:00,Court denies motion to quash subpoena against journalist working on book about 1993 NY murder,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-denies-motion-to-quash-subpoena-against-journalist-working-on-book-about-1993-ny-murder/,2021-02-09 17:41:50.536925+00:00,,LegalOrder object (86),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Samantha Christmann (Freelance),,2020-01-29,False,Lockport,New York (NY),43.17061,-78.69031,"Journalist Samantha Christmann was subpoenaed on Jan. 29, 2020, to testify about her interviews with the defendant in an ongoing murder trial in Lockport, New York. Christmann’s motion to quash the subpoena was dismissed by the Niagara County Court on Jan. 21, 2021, according to her lawyer.
The trial involves the 1993 murder of Mandy Steingasser, who was strangled to death when she was 17. In 2018, police charged Joseph H. Belstadt with the murder after newly tested DNA evidence allegedly connected him to the crime. Belstadt had long been a suspect in the crime but was only charged when the new testing was done on DNA recovered from his car in 1993, according to The Buffalo News.
Christmann is a business reporter for The Buffalo News but will not cover the trial for the outlet, The News said. Michael Higgins, Christmann’s lawyer, said she is working on a book about the murder case and was subpoenaed as an independent journalist. According to the paper, she went to school with both Steingasser and Belstadt, and in interviews she did with Belstadt he gave a different account of his whereabouts when the murder happened than what he had told police.
Higgins filed a motion to quash the subpoena in June 2020 and told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he argued Christmann was protected by New York state journalist shield laws. After the court refused to quash the subpoena, Higgins told the Tracker that Christmann did not plan to appeal the ruling. He said it is unclear when the court might call Christmann to testify; the trial has faced delays due to the state’s COVID-19 restrictions on jury trials.
Fox News journalist Malia Zimmerman was subpoenaed on Jan. 7, 2020, to testify about a 2017 article and her communications with the defendant in a pending defamation suit.
The article, published in May 2017, reported on the conspiracy around the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, alleging that he and his brother, Aaron Rich, were embroiled in a plot to steal and share DNC emails with WikiLeaks. Fox News retracted the article a week later.
In 2018, Aaron Rich sued Edward Butowsky, Matthew Couch and America First Media, alleging that they had defamed him by publishing false statements about his purported involvement in such a plot and prior knowledge of his brother’s murder.
According to a court order reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Aaron Rich alleges that journalist Zimmerman was in frequent contact with Butowsky both before and after her article was retracted. Butowsky also appears to rely on Zimmerman’s article as a basis for his defense in the suit.
Zimmerman’s Twitter account was also among those listed in a 2018 subpoena issued to the social media company. Zimmerman could not be reached for comment.
The January deposition subpoena orders Zimmerman to provide testimony concerning her communications with Butowsky, any knowledge she may have as to whether he acted intentionally or recklessly and Fox News’ decision-making process behind the retraction.
On Jan. 15, Fox and Zimmerman moved for a protective order barring her deposition on the basis that her testimony is protected by newsgathering privilege under the First Amendment and New York’s reporter shield law.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied their motion on March 25, 2020.
In his April 9 order explaining that decision, Leon wrote that Zimmerman’s communications with Butowsky were not protected because he was not her source (nor had Zimmerman claimed that he was), and that in sharing information with Butowsky she “waived any newsgathering privilege.”
Leon also stipulated that the outlet’s decision to retract Zimmerman’s article is not privileged, and even if it were, Aaron Rich had demonstrated the centrality of her testimony to his case.
Fox and Zimmerman filed a motion for the court to reconsider its decision on April 22. Attorneys for Fox News and Zimmerman declined to comment.
In the motion, reviewed by the Tracker, they argue that Judge Leon took an “unduly narrow” view of what is protected by reporter’s privilege. Butowsky — even though he is not quoted in Zimmerman’s piece — should still be considered a source, they said, and the decision to retract an article is made through the same editorial process as the decision to publish.
Fox and Zimmerman urged Leon, if he remained unmoved by those arguments, to vacate his rulings on those issues and to rest his decision to allow Zimmerman’s deposition solely on the determination that Rich had overcome her reporter’s privilege.
“Those questions concerning scope and waiver of the privilege have constitutional dimension, as well as implications for journalists beyond the confines of this dispute, and they should not be decided unless it is necessary for the Court to do so,” the motion reads.
As of this writing, no decision has been reached on this latest motion.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Tracker partner organization, wrote that the ruling could pose significant First Amendment issues if not rolled back.
“Far from not being part of the editorial process in newsgathering, as the district court found, the decision to retract a story is perhaps the most ‘weighty’ exercise of editorial judgment there is,” writes Gabe Rottman, director of RCFP’s Technology and Press Freedom Project.
“To allow that holding to stand would discourage all news organizations from having these discussions, which would harm newsgathering and the free flow of true information to the public.”
A portion of the motion asking a judge to reconsider an order allowing the deposition of Fox News journalist Malia Zimmerman
",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,None,Federal,None,False,None,,,,, 2021-04-29 18:38:29.979290+00:00,2023-07-05 20:47:58.750200+00:00,Court upholds subpoena of Richmond Times-Dispatch in civil lawsuit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/court-upholds-subpoena-of-richmond-times-dispatch-in-civil-lawsuit/,2023-07-05 20:47:58.594894+00:00,,LegalOrder object (84),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2020-01-07,False,Richmond,Virginia (VA),37.55376,-77.46026,"On Jan. 7, 2020, a subpoena was issued to the BH Media Group, owner of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, seeking published and source material from any interviews the newspaper had done with Jason Kamras, superintendent of Richmond Public Schools and one of the defendants in a lawsuit concerning an alleged cheating scandal at a local elementary school.
In July 2019, three of the school’s former teachers sued Kamras, the Richmond City School Board and Richmond Public Schools for “defamation and violation of their right to due process,” according to WRIC, the ABC affiliate station in Richmond. The teachers had proctored Standards of Learning tests in 2018 and were later cited in a Virginia Department of Education report that summarized testing irregularities and noted that “inappropriate assistance” had been provided by some school employees to help students pass their tests.
The Times-Dispatch covered the scandal throughout the summer of 2018. During pretrial discovery in the case, the plaintiffs subpoenaed the Times-Dispatch to produce published and unpublished material regarding the coverage of the scandal by the newspaper. The parties resolved most of the requests made in the subpoena with the exception of certain unpublished material, including the recording of an interview conducted between reporter Justin Mattingly and Kamras. In the motion to quash the subpoena, the newspaper argued that the First Amendment extends protection to all unpublished material obtained in the process of news-gathering and that the recording of the interview was irrelevant, since the plaintiff’s defamation claims were based on Kamras’ public statements.
On May 22, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion to quash the subpoena, noting that the recording of the interview was testament to Kamras’ state of mind and deemed it plausible that Kamras made other similar, possibly defamatory statements during the course of the interview.
The court held that the newspaper’s claim that the information could be obtained from other sources, including cross-examination of the defendant, was nonviable, since the defendant’s recollection could raise concerns of credibility during the trial. It also acknowledged that the newspaper had diminished interest in protecting the source, since Kamras was not a confidential source, and ruled “that the interest in disclosure outweighs the Reporter's interest.”
When reached for comment, Richmond Times-Dispatch executive editor Paige Mudd told the Tracker that the newspaper “won’t have any comment on this matter.” David B. Lacy, an attorney for BH Media Group, did not respond to a request for comment. With no further information available, the status of the subpoena is noted as “upheld.”
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.
In May 2017, Housley was involved in publishing an article with Malia Zimmerman that alleged Seth Rich's connection to stealing and sharing DNC emails with WikiLeaks. Fox News retracted the article a week later. Zimmerman was also subpoenaed in January 2020.
Status of Subpoena
The U.S. Department of Justice on May 3, 2021, notified Washington Post reporters Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller, and former Post reporter Adam Entous, that it had obtained their phone records from 2017 over reporting on the Trump administration's communications with Russia during the 2016 election, the Post reported.
The Justice Department wrote in three separate letters that they obtained the reporters' phone records from April 15, 2017 to July 31, 2017, the Post reported. The article said the letters don’t state the purpose of this seizure, but noted that “toward the end of the time period mentioned in the letters, those reporters wrote a story about classified U.S. intelligence intercepts indicating that in 2016, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) had discussed the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, who was Russia’s ambassador to the United States.”
The letters received at the Post were signed by Channing D. Phillips, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and John C. Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s national security division, the paper reported. Records from five phones had been seized. These were Nakashima’s work, cell and home phones; Miller’s work and cellphones; and Entous’ cellphone.
"We are deeply troubled by this use of government power to seek access to the communications of journalists,” the Post’s acting executive editor, Cameron Barr, said in the article. “The Department of Justice should immediately make clear its reasons for this intrusion into the activities of reporters doing their jobs, an activity protected under the First Amendment."
A Justice Department spokesman told the Post that the decision to obtain those records came in 2020, during the Trump Administration. A specific date or the name of the telecom company in possession of the records was not disclosed. The letters, according to the article, also indicated a court order to take “non content communication records” for the reporters’ work email accounts, but the Justice Department didn’t do so. The Post said the timeline of the leak investigation was unclear, but the Justice Department is typically required to tell the news organization that it took action to obtain media records, which explains the notification of the reporters.
The Department of Justice, The Washington Post and the reporters didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
The U.S. Department of Justice informed CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr on May 13, 2021, that under the Trump administration, the agency secretly obtained her work and personal phone and email records, CNN reported.
According to CNN, prosecutors obtained Starr’s records from June 1 to July 31, 2017, including records from her phone extension at the Pentagon, the CNN Pentagon booth phone, Starr’s home and work numbers, and both her work and personal email accounts.
The phone information obtained included “toll records” for each number, which detail the numbers of calls to and from the line and the duration of each. Similarly, prosecutors obtained “non-content information” for Starr’s email addresses: the recipient, sender and timestamp of each email but not the contents, the outlet reported. CNN said the records were obtained without notifying Starr or her employer.
It is unclear what investigators were looking for, CNN reported, as well as when the investigation was opened and whether it was by Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Attorney General William Barr, both appointed by former President Trump. Neither Starr nor CNN responded to requests for comment.
Anthony Coley, DOJ’s director of public affairs and a senior advisor to Attorney General Merrick Garland, said in a statement to CNN that the decision to subpoena Starr’s communications was approved by the Trump administration in 2020.
“Department leadership will soon meet with reporters to hear their concerns about recent notices and further convey Attorney General Garland’s staunch support of and commitment to a free and independent press,” Coley said.
“CNN strongly condemns the secret collection of any aspect of a journalist’s correspondence, which is clearly protected by the First Amendment,” said CNN President Jeff Zucker in a statement to the outlet. “We are asking for an immediate meeting with the Justice Department for an explanation.”
The revelation about Starr’s records was one in a series of recent disclosures about the Trump administration’s efforts to use the seizure of journalists’ communications to identify leakers or critics of the administration.
CNN reported that DOJ regulations for issuing media subpoenas were changed under the Obama administration in 2015, to require that the attorney general authorize any such legal orders related to journalists’ communications or work product. While the regulations mandated that the journalist and outlet be notified of the seizures, the policy set no clear timetable for notification.
On May 21, 2021, President Joe Biden condemned such seizures as “simply, simply wrong” following the revelations about Starr’s records, The Associated Press reported. In keeping with Biden’s sentiments, the DOJ announced on June 5 that it will no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations, according to the AP.
“This announcement is a potential sea change for press freedom rights in the United States,” Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. “While we’re encouraged to see this announcement ending this invasive and disturbing tactic, the devil is — of course — in the details. The Justice Department must now write this categorical bar of journalist surveillance into its official ‘media guidelines,’ and Congress should also immediately enshrine the rules into law to ensure no administration can abuse its power again.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland met with executives from CNN as well as those from The New York Times and The Washington Post on June 14, and affirmed the planned policy changes.
The U.S. Department of Justice informed The New York Times on June 2, 2021, that the agency secretly obtained phone records of four of the newspaper’s reporters during the Trump administration, the Times reported.
The Justice Department, now under President Joe Biden, sent a letter to the Times saying that in 2020 it had obtained phone logs spanning nearly four months of 2017 for multiple Times reporters — Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt — as part of a leak investigation. While the letter didn’t specify the subject of the investigation, according to the Times the four reporters were covering then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of investigations into the 2016 election, and had published classified information.
Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet told the newspaper in a statement: “President Biden has said this sort of interference with a free press will not be tolerated in his administration. We expect the Department of Justice to explain why this action was taken and what steps are being taken to make certain it does not happen again in the future.”
Goldman’s phone records also were seized in 2013 while he was reporting for The Associated Press, which helped spur reforms to the department’s policies on obtaining journalists’ records. Goldman didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.
I don’t care who is president - Republican or Democrat - I will always try to inform the public.
— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanNYT) June 3, 2021
“I don’t care who is president—Republican or Democrat—I will always try to inform the public,” Goldman wrote in a June 2 tweet.
CNN reported that DOJ regulations for issuing media subpoenas were changed under the Obama administration in 2015 to require that the attorney general authorize any such legal orders related to journalists’ communications or work products. While the regulations mandated that the journalist and outlet be notified of the seizures, the policy set no clear timetable for notification.
The revelation about the Times reporters’ phone records was the latest in a series of recent disclosures about the Trump administration’s efforts to use the seizure of journalists’ communications to identify leakers or critics of the administration. On June 4, a gag order was lifted, allowing Times attorney Dave McCraw to reveal that the DOJ also had attempted to obtain the four reporters’ email records in an effort that began in January 2021 and continued under the Biden administration.
On May 21, President Joe Biden condemned such seizures as “simply, simply wrong,” the AP reported. In keeping with Biden’s sentiments, the DOJ announced on June 5 that it would no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations, according to the AP.
“This announcement is a potential sea change for press freedom rights in the United States,” Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. “While we’re encouraged to see this announcement ending this invasive and disturbing tactic, the devil is—of course—in the details. The Justice Department must now write this categorical bar of journalist surveillance into its official ‘media guidelines,’ and Congress should also immediately enshrine the rules into law to ensure no administration can abuse its power again.”
FPF is a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker and manages its day-to-day operations.
When reached for comment concerning the newspaper’s push for an explanation from the Justice Department, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha confirmed to the Tracker that publisher A.G. Sulzberger would be meeting with the attorney general and shared a statement from him ahead of that meeting.
“We’re pleased that Attorney General [Merrick] Garland has agreed to this meeting. We hope to use the meeting to learn more about how this seizure of records happened and to seek a commitment that the Department of Justice will no longer seize journalists’ records during leak investigations,” Sulzberger said.
Garland met with executives from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN on June 14, and affirmed the planned policy changes. While Garland’s comments during the meeting were off the record, The Times reported that Sulzberger was encouraged by Garland’s statements but said he would continue to push the department until the outlets’ concerns are fully addressed.
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,[],,,,, 2018-11-26 18:38:42.229046+00:00,2024-01-05 19:10:17.724800+00:00,Journalist Jamie Kalven subpoenaed to testify in police officer trial,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-jamie-kalven-subpoenaed-testify-police-officer-trial/,2024-01-05 19:10:17.621240+00:00,,LegalOrder object (39),(2018-11-28 11:17:00+00:00) Subpoena withdrawn,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Jamie Kalven (Independent),,2018-11-16,False,Chicago,Illinois (IL),41.85003,-87.65005,"Jamie Kalven was subpoenaed on Nov. 16, 2018 to testify in the trial of three Chicago police officers accused of lying to protect a fellow police officer who murdered a teenager in 2014.
Kalven is an independent journalist based in Chicago and the founder of the Invisible Institute, a journalistic outlet focused on government accountability.
Three Chicago police officers — David March, Joseph Walsh and Thomas Gaffney — stand accused of falsifying reports about the fatal shooting of teenager Laquan McDonald in 2014. The trial is set to begin Nov. 27, 2018.
The subpoena orders him to appear in court and testify on Nov. 29. Craig Futterman — an attorney and University of Chicago Law School professor who was instrumental in getting video footage related to the shooting released — was also subpoenaed in the case.
In a Nov. 20 motion to quash, his attorneys argue that reporter’s privilege protects Kalven from testifying about his reporting.
“Journalist Jamie Kalven and attorney Craig Futterman have no firsthand knowledge of any events that are possibly relevant to this case; their only connection to the Laquan McDonald shooting or the Defendant’s accused conduct is in reporting on the veracity of the official narrative,” the motion reads.
James McKay — attorney for Chicago police officer on trial David March — did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Kalven was also subpoenaed to testify and reveal details about his sources in October 2017, at a pre-trial hearing in the murder case of former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke.
Attorneys for Kalven quickly filed a motion to quash it, arguing that as a journalist, he could not be forced to reveal information about his sources except under exceptional circumstances. The judge in that case agreed and found that Van Dyke’s attorneys had not shown the necessity of Kalven’s testimony.
That subpoena was quashed in December 2017, and Van Dyke was ultimately found guilty of murdering teenager Laquan McDonald.
The Department of Homeland Security subpoenaed the editor of an immigration law journal in an attempt to identify the source of a leaked internal memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Daniel Kowalski is a Colorado-based immigration attorney and the editor of “Bender’s Immigration Bulletin,” an immigration law journal published on LexisNexis. In July 2018, Kowalski published a leaked copy of an internal ICE memo about changes to the government's approach toward asylum claims.
On Oct. 16, 2018, Kowalski received a subpoena from the Department of Homeland Security ordering him to produce:
all information related to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memorandum with the subject title of “Litigating Domestic Violence-Based Persecution Claims Following Matter of a A-B-“ dated July 11, 2018; including, but not limited to: (1) date of receipt, (2) method of receipt, (3) source of document, and (4) contact information for the source of the document.
DHS summons to Daniel Kowalski
The subpoena also includes a gag provision, which states: “You are requested not to disclose the existence of this summons for an indefinite period of time. Any such disclosure will impede this investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of federal law.
The subpoena orders Kowalski to produce the requested material by Oct. 30, 2018, to a special agent in ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, suggesting that there is an active internal investigation into the source of the leaked memo.
Kowalski told Freedom of the Press Foundation that he intends to ignore the subpoena, which he believes was not properly served on him.
“I’m planning on ignoring it,” he said. “They also haven’t served me in person; they just faxed and emailed it, so technically they’d need to physically find me.”
If Kowalski does not comply with the subpoena, ICE can try to get a federal judge to compel him to provide information about the source of the memo. But Kowalski is confident that no judge would compel him to comply with the subpoena.
Unlike subpoenas issued by federal courts, the subpoena to Kowalski was a summons issued directly by DHS, in accordance with a federal law (19 U.S.C. § 1509) that allows DHS to issue summons in connection with investigations concerning the importation of merchandise.
ICE’s sister agency, Customs & Border Protection, previously cited the same law to issue a summons to Twitter last year. The summons, which demanded that Twitter reveal the user behind an alt-government account, was later withdrawn, and the DHS Office of Inspector General chastised CBP for misusing the statute.
Journalist Lance Pugmire was subpoenaed on September 28, 2018, as part of a lawsuit around a major boxing match he covered in 2015 while a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
It was the first of a total of five subpoenas Pugmire received between 2018 and 2023, in a plaintiff’s long-running lawsuit around finder’s fees for a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The match broke pay-per-view records at more than $400 million in sales, as Pugmire himself reported for the Times.
The plaintiff in the suit claims that Showtime, which televised the fight, as well as Pacquiao and his trainer, Frederick Roach, promised him a finder’s fee for helping to negotiate the fight.
In the fall of 2018, the plaintiff subpoenaed Pugmire for testimony to have him confirm that quotations from Roach in Pugmire’s articles about the fight were accurately attributed. Pugmire objected to the subpoena and refused to testify. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel his testimony, which was denied on March 5, 2019, on the grounds that it was filed too late after Pugmire’s objections.
Luke Kuhn, an independent journalist and contributor to anarchist news outlet It’s Going Down, was served a grand jury subpoena on Sept. 4, 2018. The subpoena, which was later withdrawn, ordered Kuhn to hand over his video footage of Unite the Right II, a far-right protest that took place a few weeks earlier.
Kuhn told Freedom of the Press Foundation that the subpoena was delivered to his mother’s house on Sept. 5. The subpoena ordered him to appear at the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on the morning of Sept. 11 and to bring:
All recorded images, audio and data of protests near the White House, in Washington, D.C., on August 12, 2018, between the hours 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., that are contained in a hand-held, Canon, flip-screen camera, with a black hand strap, that you possessed within the District of Columbia on August 12, 2018.
Grand jury subpoena to Luke Kuhn
Kuhn said he was notified on the morning of Sept. 11 that the subpoena had been withdrawn.
Kuhn said that he was unsure why the grand jury was interested in his footage, but he speculated that federal prosecutors may wish to identify anti-fascist protesters who were present at the rally.
In 2016, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia, indicted more than two hundred anti-fascist protesters (and two independent journalists) on federal rioting charges. Much of the evidence in those indictments came from seized video footage of the J20 protests.
“Under no circumstances would I comply with this, or any other, Grand Jury subpoena relating to people involved in social movements,” Kuhn said.
On a solidarity rally on the morning of Sept. 11 in Washington, D.C., Kuhn burned multiple copies of the subpoena.
William Miller, a public information officer at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, declined to comment on the subpoena.
On June 7, 2018 attorneys for Oberlin College filed a subpoena in New York state, seeking communications between the blog Legal Insurrection and attorneys for Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin, Ohio.
Legal Insurrection has extensively covered a defamation lawsuit that Gibson’s Bakery filed against Oberlin College on Nov. 7, 2017. The 8 count defamation suit seeks more than $200,000 in damages over accusations of racial profiling and discrimination which the bakery claims caused irreparable damage to their business.
“Oberlin College’s theory behind the demand for journalist communications with Gibson’s counsel was that Gibson’s counsel somehow created the damages to Gibson’s reputation that are at issue in the lawsuit by communicating with the media,” William Jacobson, the author of Legal Insurrection, wrote in a post about the subpoena.
Oberlin initially attempted to subpoena Gibson’s Bakery for communication records. But after an Ohio court denied that subpoena on April 18, 2018, attorneys for Oberlin College brought a subpoena against WAJ Media LLC, which operates as Legal Insurrection and is based in Ithaca, NY.
The subpoena was withdrawn on July 18, after Legal Insurrection filed a motion to quash the subpoena citing New York’s press shield law.
In 2016, New York Times reporter Frances Robles was subpoenaed to testify in the murder trial of Conrado Juarez, whom Robles interviewed in jail in 2013. Robles fought the subpoenas, but the New York Court of Appeals — the highest court in the state — upheld the subpoenas on a technicality in a ruling on June 27, 2018.
If Robles refuses to comply with the subpoena, she could be held in contempt of court and put in jail.
In October 2013, Robles conducted a jailhouse interview with Conrado Juarez, who had been charged with the murder of “Baby Hope,” a four year old found dead in a picnic cooler in 1991. Although Juarez had confessed to the murder to police, he told Robles that police had coerced him into confessing. The day after the interview, the Times reported that Juarez claimed that his confession to police had been coerced.
In early 2016, Robles was subpoenaed to testify about her interview with Juarez and to hand over her reporter’s notes from the interview. Robles was subpoenaed to testify at a pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility of Juarez’s statements to law enforcement.
Robles moved to quash the subpoenas.
According to the New York State Constitution, a reporter can only be compelled to disclose non-confidential information if it is “critical or necessary” to the case and not available from any other source.
On April 13, 2016, the court quashed the subpoena, ruling that Robles’ testimony was not “critical or necessary” to the pretrial hearing because the prosecution already had a videotape of Juarez’s confession and access to the police and prosecutor that obtained it. The court also noted that compelling Robles’ testimony would open the door to lines of questioning beyond published material during cross examination.
After the pretrial hearing, the prosecution tried to subpoena Robles to testify during Juarez’s criminal trial. Robles again moved to quash the subpoenas, but this time, the trial court ruled against her. In August 2016, the trial court formally upheld the subpoenas, ruling that her testimony was “critical or necessary” to the case that the prosecution wanted to make about Juarez’s confession during the trial.
Robles immediately appealed the trial court’s decision. In October 2016, the First Department appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the prosecution had not shown that Robles’ testimony was so “critical or necessary” that it could override her reporter’s privilege not to testify about her sources.
The prosecution then asked the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York state, to review the First Department appeals court’s decision, and the New York Court of Appeals agreed to do so.
The prosecution wanted the New York Court of Appeals to find that Robles’ testimony was in fact “critical or necessary” to the case and the First Department appeals court was wrong to reverse the trial court’s original decision forcing Robles to testify. Robles’ attorneys wanted the New York Court of Appeals to uphold the First Department appeals court’s decision and ensure that journalists in New York state cannot be compelled to testify in court about her conversations with sources.
“Ms. Roles has testified that most sources in jail would not speak with her if they came to believe ‘that the prosecution could successfully compel [her] to testify’ about their conversations,” Robles’ legal team wrote in a brief to the New York Court of Appeals. “Permitting prosecutors to enforce subpoenas like the one in this case would ‘fundamentally diminish’ Ms. Robles’s ‘practical ability to gather the news…’ and would in turn diminish the public’s knowledge about claims of mistreatment by indigent individuals caught up in the criminal justice system.”
In the end, the New York Court of Appeals did not rule on whether or not Robles’ testimony was necessary to the case. Instead, in a controversial 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that Robles was not technically allowed to appeal the trial court’s original decision, so the First Department appeals court’s ruling was completely moot.
The New York Court of Appeals did not actually say that the trial court’s decision to uphold the subpoenas was correct, just that Robles was not allowed to appeal it.
But it hardly matters to Robles. Since she’s not allowed to appeal the trial court’s decision to uphold the subpoenas ordering to testify, that decision stands.
If she refuses to testify, the trial court could find her in contempt of court and order her jailed until she agrees to testify.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press (a partner organization of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker) criticized the Court of Appeals decision.
“The protections of a shield law are meaningless unless a reporter can appeal an erroneous trial court ruling,” RCFP executive director Bruce Brown said in a statement. “Today’s decision leaves important substantive protections for journalists under New York law without the means to enforce them. A reporter should not have to risk going to jail for contempt in order to trigger appellate review of her rights.”
A federal judge rejected the attempt of the city of Elkhart, Indiana, to force the South Bend Tribune to turn over records of its reporting on an Illinois man who is suing the city for wrongful conviction.
U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Michael Gotsch ruled on Feb. 26 that the city’s subpoena and allegations of conspiracy were “misplaced.”
The subpoena was issued on June 27, 2018, amid an investigation by The Tribune and ProPublica into the conviction of Keith Cooper in a 1996 robbery and shooting. Cooper was pardoned in February 2017 following new DNA evidence and a witness recanting testimony.
The city sought communications between Tribune journalists, Cooper and Cooper’s lawyer, alleging that The Tribune was biased and conspiring with Cooper to advance his lawsuit against the city.
In his order quashing the subpoena, Gotsch wrote that the text messages and emails Cooper’s lawyer turned over as evidence before the Court did not support the city’s accusations of conspiracy, The Tribune reported.
“The City cites… examples of communications that it interprets as evidence of conspiracy,” Gotsch wrote, “when they simply reflect a reporter doing what a reporter does—pursuing sources with information about the story, identifying inconsistencies in a story and confronting the relevant characters with that information, giving both sides to a story a chance to be heard.”
To the city’s complaints that the newspaper was biased in its coverage, Gotsch noted that the views of city and police officers named in the suit were not represented because they declined to speak to reporters.
A portion of the order quashing a subpoena seeking reporting records from the South Bend Tribune.
",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,Institution,None,Federal,None,False,None,South Bend Tribune,,,, 2020-03-03 20:20:56.724804+00:00,2021-10-05 20:16:23.187588+00:00,"Twitter subpoenaed for information of journalists, media outlets",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/twitter-subpoenaed-information-journalists-media-outlets/,2021-10-05 20:16:23.124545+00:00,,LegalOrder object (32),"(2021-03-29 12:35:00+00:00) Case terminated in defamation suit in which Twitter was subpoenaed for information of journalists, media outlets",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,"Cassandra Fairbanks (Gateway Pundit), Matt Couch (America First Media Group), Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)",,2018-06-06,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"As part of an ongoing defamation suit, an attorney representing Aaron Rich — brother of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich — subpoenaed Twitter for account information of numerous accounts, including several journalists and media outlets.
Aaron Rich named Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, America First Media Group and its founder Matt Couch and The Washington Times newspaper in the March 2018 lawsuit, following debunked reports that Seth Rich had been involved with the 2016 DNC email leaks prior to his death.
Filed on June 6, 2018, the subpoena commands Twitter to produce account data, documents and communications concerning Seth Rich or his family, the DNC, the defendants, and individuals, outlets and phrases connected with the alleged defamatory reporting from identified “primary” and “secondary” accounts. The list of primary accounts, which predominantly consists of the defendants, also includes The Gateway Pundit and its reporter Cassandra Fairbanks, and WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. The secondary accounts are all those that interacted with the primary accounts via tweet, re-tweet, direct message or reply from Jan. 1, 2015, to the date of the subpoena.
Twitter was initially given until June 15 to produce all responsive documents. The Gateway Pundit reported that Twitter sent letters notifying accounts implicated in the subpoena.
Reporter Fairbanks told Law & Crime the subpoena was a “gross and far reaching violation of privacy.”
It is unclear whether Twitter turned over documents or communications in accordance with the subpoena or a court order, and Twitter declined to comment on whether it opposed the subpoena. The social media company has objected to similar subpoenas in other instances.
A portion of the subpoena demanding Twitter 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,['UNKNOWN'],Twitter,tech company,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,"America First Media Group, Gateway Pundit, The Washington Times, WikiLeaks",,,, 2018-11-30 03:15:46.565780+00:00,2020-03-19 20:20:16.186825+00:00,Oberlin College subpoenas local newspaper editor in defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/oberlin-college-subpoenas-local-newspaper-editor-defamation-suit/,2020-03-19 20:20:16.046496+00:00,,LegalOrder object (31),,Subpoena/Legal Order,"Oberlin College goes after another news organization’s communications (https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/oberlin-college-goes-after-another-news-organizations-communications/) via Legal Insurrection, Court: Oberlin College can’t question journalist as to sources in Gibson’s Bakery case (https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/court-oberlin-college-cant-question-journalist-as-to-sources-in-gibsons-bakery-case/) via Legal Insurrection",,,Jason Hawk (Oberlin News Tribune),,2018-05-30,False,Oberlin,Ohio (OH),41.29394,-82.21738,"On May 30, 2018, attorneys for Oberlin College in Ohio subpoenaed local newspaper editor Jason Hawk to testify about his confidential sources.
Hawk, the editor of the Oberlin News Tribune, had reported in November 2016 on protests outside of Gibson’s Bakery, a local bakery that Oberlin College administrators and students accused of racial discrimination. In November 2017, the bakery sued Oberlin College in state court for defamation.
As part of the defamation suit, Oberlin’s attorneys subpoenaed Gibson’s Bakery for records of its communications with journalists, including Hawk. When that subpoena was denied, Oberlin’s attorneys subpoenaed Hawk directly, ordering him to testify at a deposition on June 27, 2018. (Oberlin's attorneys also subpoenaed William Jacobson, a legal blogger who had written extensively about the defamation suit.)
During the June 27 deposition, Hawk refused to answer many questions, citing his reporter’s privilege not to divulge information about his sources.
Neither Oberlin’s attorneys nor Hawk’s attorneys were happy with the deposition. Oberlin’s attorneys asked the court to force Hawk to answer more questions about what he witnessed at the protest, while Hawk’s attorneys asked the court to quash the subpoena.
On Aug. 22, the court ruled that Oberlin could not ask Hawk questions about his sources, but Hawk did have to answer questions about what he witnessed during the protest.
John-Erik Koslosky and Kristin Baver, reporters for the Press Enterprise newspaper in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, were subpoenaed in May 2018 to give testimony in the murder trial of Anthony “Rocco” Franklin. Centre County senior judge David Grine quashed both subpoenas on May 24, 2018.
Franklin is currently on trial for the 2012 murder of his former son-in-law, Frank Spencer. He fled to Argentina but was arrested by Argentinian authorities, before being extradited to the United States on April 12, 2017. Baver and Koslosky interviewed Franklin over the phone while he was imprisoned in Argentina, and the Press Enterprise published an article based on the interview. Another local newspaper, The Daily Item, also conducted a jailhouse interview with Franklin over the phone.
State prosecutors subpoenaed Koslosky and Baver, as well as a reporter from The Daily Item, to testify about what Franklin told them during the interviews. The three reporters successfully fought the subpoenas, convincing Judge Grine that the prosecution did not need their testimony to make its case.
Francis Scarcella — a reporter for The Daily Item newspaper in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania — was subpoenaed to testify in the murder trial of Anthony ""Rocco"" Franklin, in May 2018. A hearing on the subpoena was held on May 22, 2018, and a judge quashed the subpoena two days later.
Franklin is currently on trial for the 2012 murder of his former son-in-law, Frank Spencer. He fled to Argentina but was arrested by Argentinian authorities, before being extradited to the United States on April 12, 2017. While Franklin was being held in an Argentinian prison, he reached out to the press. Scarcella conducted a phone interview with him and then wrote it up for The Daily Item. Two journalists at another newspaper, the Press Enterprise, also interviewed Franklin over the phone and wrote about it.
Prosecutors subpoenaed Scarcella and the two Press Enterprise reporters in order to force them to testify about statements that Franklin made to them during the interview. During a court hearing on the subpoena before Centre County senior judge David Grine, prosecutors complained that the papers' reporting on the Franklin case had been ""reckless.""
On May 24, 2018, judge Grine quashed the subpoena against Scarcella and the subpoenas against the Press Enterprise reporters.
Kristin Baver and John-Erik Koslosky, reporters for the Press Enterprise newspaper in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, were subpoenaed in May 2018 to give testimony in the murder trial of Anthony “Rocco” Franklin. Centre County senior judge David Grine quashed both subpoenas on May 24, 2018.
Franklin is currently on trial for the 2012 murder of his former son-in-law, Frank Spencer. He fled to Argentina but was arrested by Argentinian authorities, before being extradited to the United States on April 12, 2017. Baver and Koslosky interviewed Franklin over the phone while he was imprisoned in Argentina, and the Press Enterprise published an article based on the interview. Another local newspaper, The Daily Item, also conducted a jailhouse interview with Franklin over the phone.
State prosecutors subpoenaed Baver and Koslosky, as well as a reporter from The Daily Item, to testify about what Franklin told them during the interviews. The three reporters successfully fought the subpoenas, convincing Judge Grine that the prosecution did not need their testimony to make its case.
On May 16, 2018, attorneys for Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy drew up a subpoena for documents from The Associated Press, which demanded that the news organization hand over leaked copies of Broidy's emails, as well as documents that could identify the source who leaked Broidy's emails to the AP. On May 22, the AP confirmed that it had received the subpoena and planned to fight it.
The subpoena is part of a civil suit that Broidy filed in federal court in California against the government of Qatar. Broidy has accused Qatar of hacking his emails and then working with a P.R. firm to leak copies of the emails to journalists at the AP and other news organizations.
On May 21, the AP published a deeply-reported investigation into Elliott's work with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two nations that have been locked in an escalating diplomatic feud with Qatar for more than a year.
The AP investigation, which was "based on interviews with more than two dozen people and hundreds of pages of leaked emails between" Broidy and a business partner, reported that Broidy had lobbied Trump and other administration to adopt the kind of anti-Qatar foreign policy favored by the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and was then rewarded by the UAE government with a lucrative consulting contract.
In the same story, the AP reported that beginning in February 2018, a number of news organizations started to receive "anonymously leaked batches of Broidy’s emails and documents that had apparently been hacked." And a lawyer for Broidy told the AP that its reporting "is based on fraudulent and fabricated documents obtained from entities with a known agenda to harm Mr. Broidy."
In the past, both Qatar and the UAE have accused one another of hacking the other, so it's not surprising that Broidy believes that Qatar is connected to the hack and leak of his emails.
His goal seems to be to use the subpoena to force the AP to turn over documents that implicate Qatar in the leak of his emails, which he can then use as evidence in his civil suit against the Qatari government.
An AP spokeswoman told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that the news outlet plans to fight the subpoena. The AP is expected to invoke reporter's privilege, which protects journalists and news organizations from being forced by the government to reveal information about its confidential sources.
Lee Wolosky — the attorney at Boies, Schiller & Flexner who drew up the subpoena on Broidy's behalf — did not respond to a request for comment. But according to Politico, Wolosky argued in a letter accompanying the subpoena that reporter's privilege should not apply to the AP because the leaked emails were obtained illegally and information about the AP's sources are "crucial to his case."
On May 16, 2018, attorneys for Craig Carter — a former assistant coach at the University of Arizona who was convicted of assault in March — subpoenaed Arizona Daily Star reporter Caitlin Schmidt, seeking all records of Schmidt's communications with both the woman that he assaulted and with the woman's attorneys.
The woman, Baillie Gibson, is currently suing Carter and the University of Arizona in civil court, alleging that Carter conducted a nonconsensual sexual relationship with her for years and then attacked her in his office when she tried to end the relationship.
On March 30, Carter was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, including one with a deadly weapon. On May 14, he was sentenced to a five year prison sentence for assault, to be served concurrently with an 18 month prison sentence for a second count of assault and concurrent sentences for stalking and violating a protective order.
Caitlin Schmidt, a reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, has extensively covered Gibson’s allegations against Carter, writing more than two dozen articles about the case.
Gibson’s civil lawsuit against Carter and the university remains active, and on May 16, attorneys for Carter and his wife filed a subpoena with the court seeking records of any communications that Gibson and her attorneys had with Schmidt. (Carter’s attorneys also filed an identical subpoena to the Arizona Daily Star, Schmidt’s newspaper.)
The subpoenas demand that Schmidt and the Star hand over:
1. All Documents and Communications relating to any conversation, interview, or other interaction between You and Cadigan Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Michael J. Bloom, P.C., The Carrillo Law Firm, P.L.L.C., and/or the law firm of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, or between You and any attorney(s) or other employees(s) employed by or associated with any of the foregoing, specifically including but not limited to Lynne M. Cadigan, John C. Manly, Jennifer E. Stein, Morgan A. Stewart, Michael J. Bloom and/or Erin Carrillo, at any time on or after April 29, 2015, particularly including but not limited to emails, text messages, phone records, voicemails, call logs, Pictures, and Video.
2. All Documents and Communications relating to any conversation, interview, or other interaction between You and Baillie Jean Gibson at any time on or after April 29, 2015, particularly including but not limited to emails, text messages, phone records, voicemails, call logs, Pictures, and Video.
Subpoena to Caitlin Schmidt
Schmidt told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that this was the first time she had ever been subpoenaed as a result of her reporting.
“Last Wednesday, I was talking to my courts editor, and my news editor came in and handed me a subpoena for all communications with the victim in the case and any of her attorneys dating back to 2015,” she said. “I haven’t even been covering it for that long and it was any and all notes or emails or videos or photos any, any communication, any notes on the case. So it was pretty broad. It didn’t specify exactly what they were looking for, it was just ‘any and all.’”
“I don’t know if it’s an effort to bog us down with paperwork, or in the court, or to prevent me from writing stories, or if they really are seeking my information,” she added. “But under the current law that’s not information we’re going to provide them with.”
On June 5, Daniel Barr — an attorney at Perkins Coie who represents Schmidt and the Star — filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that Arizona law protects journalists from having to hand over the kind of information sought by the subpoenas:
For more than a year, Ms. Schmidt, a reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, has been reporting on and covering the relationship between Craig Carter, a former University of Arizona assistant track coach, and a female-student athlete, Baillie Jean Gibson, including allegations that Mr. Carter assaulted Ms. Gibson. Mr. Carter was ultimately criminally convicted of assaulting Ms. Gibson and pled guilty to other felony counts arising out of his conduct in the relationship. Now, in this related civil suit, the Carters, through their attorney, seek to uncover any communications that Ms. Schmidt and any “other person or entity currently or formerly affiliated in any way with the Arizona Daily Star” [see attached subpoena to Arizona Daily Star, Ex. A, ¶ 1] may have had with Ms. Gibson and Ms. Gibson’s lawyers in the course of reporting for the Arizona Daily Star. Specifically, the Subpoenas demand that Ms. Schmidt, the Arizona Daily Star and anyone else “affiliated in any way” with the Star produce all “documents and communications” between: (1) themselves and certain named law firms and attorneys who have purportedly worked for Ms. Gibson; and (2) themselves and Ms. Gibson.
The Carters, however, are not entitled to these materials. Instead, the Subpoenas must be quashed because the affidavits accompanying them do not satisfy the Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, which “protect[s] members of the media from burdensome subpoenas and broad discovery ‘fishing expeditions’ that would,” as here, “interfere with the ongoing business of gathering and reporting news to the public.” Matera v. Super. Ct. In & For Cty. of Maricopa, 170 Ariz. 446, 448, 825 P.2d 971, 973 (App. 1992).
Motion of Star Publishing, Inc. and Caitlin Schmidt to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum
Barr further argues that the records sought by the subpoenas are wholly irrelevant to the case.
“There is no possible relevance of any statements between Ms. Schmidt or anyone else ‘affiliated in any way’ with the Star and Ms. Gibson’s attorneys, who are not, and cannot be, percipient witnesses to any of the issues in this case,” he writes in the motion to quash. “The Subpoenas amount to nothing more than a speculative ‘fishing expedition.’”
In an interesting wrinkle, the state of Arizona is the one paying for Carter’s fishing expedition against Schmidt and the Star.
Carter was still an employee of the University of Arizona at the time the civil case was filed, so he has been indemnified by the Arizona Department of Administration, which continues to cover his legal bills. On May 27, the Star reported the state of Arizona has so far paid law firm Munger Chadwick more than $1 million to defend Carter in the civil suit.
Schmidt said that she is confident that she and the Star will defeat the subpoena.
“It sounds like we have a strong case, if it’s not quashed we continue to fight it,” she said. “I have no intention of turning anything over, but if in fact it is deficient and they haven’t provided that justification then I think we’ve got a good shot. The Star is firm that we will protect all of our sources, all of the time. This isn’t something we will bend to, we don’t give up information like this.”
Barr echoed Schmidt’s confidence.
“Neither the Star nor Caitlin Schmidt will be delivering documents to anyone,” he said in a statement. “We intend to get the subpoena quashed by the trial court.”
C-VILLE Weekly reporter Samantha Baars was subpoenaed on March 12, 2018 to testify in the trial of Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler. The subpoena was quashed on March 20.
Baars told Freedom of the Press Foundation that a deputy served her the subpoena on March 16, while she was at the Charlottesville General District Court to cover a different trial. The subpoena ordered her to appear in court on March 20, the day of Kessler’s perjury trial.
Kessler, who co-organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, was charged with one count of perjury for allegedly lying on a criminal complaint that he had filed with the magistrate at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail. In the complaint, Kessler said he was assaulted by Jay Taylor. Video evidence later showed that Taylor did not assault Kessler.
Baars said that James West, her attorney, filed a motion to quash the subpoena just minutes before the clerk’s office closed on March 19. Judge Cheryl Higgins granted the motion following morning on March 20, just before jury selection began for Kessler’s perjury trial.
Baars isn’t sure why she was subpoenaed, but she said that Kessler’s attorney, Mike Hallahan, told her that he intended to use her testimony to impeach Jay Taylor, the man that Kessler accused of assault. Baars interviewed Taylor for an article about Kessler’s assault claims published on Oct. 10, 2017.
“During my motions hearing, when Albemarle Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Higgins asked him what questions he intended to ask me, he said it depended on Taylor’s testimony,” she said.
Hallahan, Kessler’s attorney, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Baars said that allowing the subpoena to proceed would have adversely impacted her newsroom.
“We have a two-man news team here at C-VILLE Weekly, and our other reporter (news editor Lisa Provence) had a different trial to cover that day,” she told Freedom of the Press Foundation. “I was assigned to cover Jason Kessler’s perjury trial, so If I had been sequestered in the witness room, I wouldn’t have been able to do my job.”
Once the subpoena was quashed, Baars was able cover Kessler’s perjury trial, which lasted less than a day and resulted in the dismissal of the perjury charge against Kessler.
Baars said that since receiving the subpoena, she has started to question which of her sentences or paragraphs could provoke an attorney to call her to the witness stand.
“That’s not something I should have to worry about when doing my job,” she said. “If reporters are regularly subpoenaed to testify in court, people could begin to perceive us as an investigative arm of the government. When I’m out reporting, I don’t want to be thinking about what I could be called to testify about in court, and I don’t want that to make potential sources more reluctant to talk to reporters.”
Virginian-Pilot reporter Scott Daugherty was subpoenaed on March 1, 2018 to testify in the trial of Mark Whitaker, a councilman for the city of Portsmouth, Virginia. The trial was later postponed until July, freeing Daugherty from the initial subpoena to testify. However, it is possible that the prosecutor could attempt to subpoena him again.
The subpoena ordered Daugherty to appear and testify in Circuit Court for the City of Portsmouth between March 21 and March 23. Daugherty told Freedom of the Press foundation that he thinks he could have been required to be present in court all three days, but more likely, he would have been told to return close to the specific time when he would have been needed.
On March 20, Daugherty’s attorney Conrad Shumadine filed a motion to quash the subpoena.
“The trial subpoena issued to Mr. Daugherty raises serious First Amendment issues,” the motion to quash states. “The Virginian-Pilot and Mr. Daugherty respectfully assert that a prosecutor must have some factual basis to subpoena a reporter for testimony and there has to be some reasonable expectancy that the reporter would be called as a witness.”
Portsmouth Councilman Mark Whitaker was charged with 20 felonies, including identity fraud and forgery, in April 2017. At that time, the Virginian-Pilot reported that Whitaker and his attorneys claimed that the case was biased or politically motivated.
In October 2017, Scott Daugherty wrote an article for the Virginian-Pilot about the fact that two of Mark Whitaker’s alleged fraud victims claimed he did nothing wrong. For the piece, he interviewed Mark Whitaker.
“I'm not really sure what the special prosecutor wanted to ask me, except it probably had to do with that one story,” Daugherty told Freedom of the Press Foundation. “Quite frankly, this isn't a case where I'd really expect the prosecution to want to ask me any questions on the stand. The councilman has never said anything to me indicating he is guilty. To the contrary, he has been pretty adamant from the beginning that this case is politically motivated and that he will be vindicated.”
Commonwealth Attorney Andrew Robbins declined to discuss what questions he intended to ask Daugherty or confirm that he would refrain from asking about unpublished information.
In a March 20 affidavit, Daugherty wrote, “If Mark Whitaker had provided me with any information suggesting or tending to the effect that he was guilty of the offenses, I would have included it in the article I wrote about the interview since any such admission would have been highly newsworthy.”
On March 20, the prosecution and defense agreed to postpone Whitaker’s fraud trial until July so that a discovery order could be entered and a hearing on an unspecified motion scheduled.
“At the moment, I am not under subpoena,” Daugherty said on March 30. “I believe the special prosecutor will have to subpoena me again if he wants me to testify during [the] new trial.”
When asked if he intends to subpoena Daugherty again to testify in Whitaker’s trial in July, Commonwealth Attorney Andrew Robbins said it would depend on how the evidence progresses between now and then.
“Anyone, reporter or anyone else, who takes a statement from a criminal defendant risks being called as a witness,” he told Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Although Daugherty has extensively covered the case since Whitaker was first indicted in April 2017, he would not have been able to report on the trial if the subpoena had proceeded.
"It would have prevented me from covering the trial, both ethically and physically," he said. "As a witness, I would have probably been barred from the courtroom until it was my time to testify. We probably would have had to have another reporter cover the trial… a reporter who knew the basics of the case, but not all of the details.”
“Without even getting to the stress a subpoena places on the relationship between a reporter and his sources, getting [subpoenaed] can effectively prevent a reporter from doing his or her job,” he added. “If you can't enter a courtroom, you can't cover a trial.”
Arun Gupta, a freelance journalist whose work has been published in The Nation and The Guardian, was subpoenaed on Feb. 14, 2018, to testify at a deposition about a Nation article he wrote. Gupta did not contest the subpoena but refused to answer any questions related to his journalism and reporting process.
In August 2016, The Nation published “The Financial Firm That Cornered the Market on Jails,” an article by Gupta about Stored Value Cards — a financial firm, also known as Numi, that provides prepaid debit cards to local jails — and a class-action lawsuit that a former jail inmate filed against the firm.
In February 2018, as part of its defense in that class-action lawsuit, Numi subpoenaed Gupta to testify about his reporting.
“Recently, Numi and the bank subpoenaed and deposed me in order to gain access to all my potential notes, sources, documentation, recordings, and so on,” Gupta told the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Gupta said that Numi originally tried to depose him in New York, but that his attorney was able to get the subpoena moved to Oregon, a state with a very strong press shield law.
Gupta oped to comply with the subpoena and was deposed on Feb. 28 at the Portland offices of Davis Wright Tremaine, the media law firm representing him. At the deposition, he refused to answer any questions related to his reporting, citing reporter’s privilege.
“Because Oregon has such strong media shield laws, my lawyer was able to bat down virtually every question the [company’s] lawyer threw at me,” he said. “They got some information about my educational and work history, but nothing else.”
KGTV 10News San Diego photojournalist Paul Anderegg was subpoenaed on Feb. 13, 2018, to testify about a car crash that he witnessed during the course of his reporting. The subpoena was quashed on March 29.
On July 18, 2017, Anderegg arrived at the stalled car of Israel Morales. According to the Voice of San Diego, Morales was pushing his vehicle on the 1-5 freeway where it was then struck by another car. He was later charged with three misdemeanors, including two counts of drunk driving. Prosecutors subpoenaed Anderegg to testify as a witness in the criminal trial on Feb. 15, 2018.
Anderegg fought the subpoena, arguing that California’s shield law protected him from testifying about his reporting. California’s shield law, which is enshrined into the state’s constitution, states:
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
California Constitution, Article I, Section 2(b)
But San Diego County prosecutors argued that the shield law should not apply because Anderegg had not been acting as a journalist at the time of the accident, citing the fact that Anderegg had encouraged Morales to push his car onto the shoulder and then had called 911 after the accident.
“There was nothing that felt like it was a story when he got out of the car,” Deputy District Attorney Joel Madero said during a court hearing on the subpoena.
Matthew Halgren, Anderegg’s attorney, said that Anderegg was acting as a journalist when he stopped by Morales’ stalled car.
“Mr. Anderegg went to the scene of the incident specifically to gather news, and he was engaged in the process of collecting information and making video recordings for use in a television news broadcast the entire time he was there,” he told the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “The fact that he simultaneously made additional communications did not change the fact that his observations were made as part of the uninterrupted newsgathering process.”
“It is hardly possible for reporters to be completely passive observers during a newsworthy incident, and a reporter does not abandon his craft when he speaks to people around him or makes a telephone call,” he added. “Additionally, removing the protection of the shield law from a reporter who assists 9-1-1 dispatchers and first responders would create a perverse disincentive for reporters to provide assistance during emergencies.”
On March 29, at a court hearing in front of retired judge Carl Davis, the prosecutors and Halgren made their cases for and against the subpoena. Davis ruled that the California shield law did apply to Anderegg and the subpoena should be quashed.
“He went there as a journalist and turned on his camera, and it stayed on,” judge Davis said, according to the Voice of San Diego.
This is not the first time that Halgren has helped a journalist fight a subpoena. Earlier this year, he represented Kelly Davis, a freelance reporter who was subpoenaed to testify about her reporting on the high number of deaths in San Diego County jails. The subpoena against Davis was defeated.
On Feb. 13, 2018, the Department of Justice notified New York Times journalist Ali Watkins that it had seized years of her phone and email records. Since Watkins was only informed after the fact, she had no way to challenge the seizure.
Watkins is a national security reporter at the Times, who previously worked at BuzzFeed, Politico, and McClatchy. In February, she received a letter from the Justice Department, informing her that it had obtained her customer records and subscriber information from Verizon and Google.
Those records, known as “metadata,” include details of each and every call, text message, and email that she sent between 2014 or so, when she was still an undergraduate intern, and December 2017. The metadata does not include the actual content of her calls and emails, but does include the recipient of each call and email, the duration of each call, and the timestamp of each message.
The Justice Department seized Watkins’ records as part of an investigation into her confidential sources. Between 2014 and late 2017, Watkins was romantically involved with James Wolfe, the director of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department began an investigation of Wolfe in connection with the leak of classified information to Watkins and other reporters. In December 2017, FBI agents interviewed Wolfe about his contacts with reporters, including Watkins. Federal investigators also approached Watkins around the same time, but she refused to speak with them.
In February 2018, a grand jury indicted Wolfe on charges of lying to federal investigators, in connection with statements he allegedly made during the December interview. The indictment accuses Wolfe of making false statements about the extent of his contacts with reporters, including Watkins. It also accuses him of making false statements about disclosing sensitive information to Watkins and another reporter.
Wolfe has not been indicted on charges of leaking classified information — to Watkins or any other reporters — and Watkins told her editors at the Times that he was not a source of classified information for her.
The seizure of Watkins’ phone and email records is the first (publicly-known) instance of the Justice Department obtaining a journalist’s communications records since Trump took office.
In 2013, during the Obama administration, it was revealed that the Justice Department secretly obtained access to a Fox News reporter’s private email account, and to months of phone records belonging to the dozens of Associated Press reporters, in an attempt to identify journalists’ sources.
After public outcry, the current Justice Department implemented voluntary guidelines in 2015. These guidelines direct the Department of Justice to only subpoena journalists for information as a last resort and require the attorney general to personally approve any subpoena of a journalist or news organization.
The guidelines also instruct the department to provide news organizations of advance notice of subpoenas and records requests related to journalism, so that the news organizations have a chance to fight the subpoenas in court before they are carried out. The guidelines specifically state that the journalist should be given advance notice, “unless the Attorney General determines that, for compelling reasons, such notice would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, risk grave harm to national security, or present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.”
Watkins and The New York Times were not given advance notice or the opportunity to challenge the seizure in court. A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Times that the department “fully complied” with its internal guidelines when seizing Watkins’ records.
The Trump administration has floated the idea of modifying the internal guidelines but so far has not done so. According to the Times, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein told a group of journalists on June 6, 2018 that the guidelines remained in effect.
Attorneys representing Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke subpoenaed the Chicago Tribune and two other Chicago-area papers on Jan. 29, 2018, ordering the papers to produce copies of all stories about Van Dyke’s fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald in 2014.
Van Dyke has been charged with murder in connection with the fatal 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager. His trial is scheduled to begin later this year.
A copy of the subpoena to the Tribune, obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, orders the paper to bring “any and all articles and/or publications in the electronic archive containing the name ‘Laquan McDonald’ and/or ‘Jason Van Dyke’” to a hearing before judge Vincent Gaughan on Feb. 1 at 9 a.m.
The articles that Van Dyke’s attorneys are interested in are already publicly available, and it is unclear why they subpoenaed the Tribune for the articles instead of just searching through the Tribune’s archives themselves.
On Feb. 1, both the Tribune and the Sun-Times reported that Van Dyke’s attorney had subpoenaed the Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Daily Herald.
On Feb. 6, Tribune attorney Karen Flax told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that the Tribune had been served the subpoena and planned to contest it. The Sun-Times declined to comment and the Daily Herald did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Van Dyke’s legal team apparently plans to argue that extensive coverage of the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago-area newspapers has rendered a fair trial for Van Dyke impossible. Van Dyke’s attorneys plan to petition the court to move the trial out of Cook County, Illinois.
Anne Kavanagh, the media spokesperson for Van Dyke’s attorney Daniel Herbert, said that Van Dyke’s defense team subpoenaed the papers to support its motion for a change of venue. Kavanagh declined to comment further, citing a gag order issued by judge Gaughan.
This are not the first media subpoena in the Van Dyke case. In 2017, Van Dyke's attorneys tried to subpoena Jamie Kalven, an independent journalist who reported extensively on the Laquan McDonald murder and the Chicago police department's alleged attempts to cover it up. Judge Gaughan quashed that subpoena.
Attorneys representing Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke subpoenaed the Chicago Sun-Times and two other Chicago-area papers on Jan. 29, 2018, ordering the papers to produce copies of all stories about Van Dyke’s fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald in 2014.
Van Dyke has been charged with murder in connection with the fatal 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager. His trial is scheduled to begin later this year.
On Feb. 1, the Sun-Times reported that Van Dyke’s attorney had subpoenaed the Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Daily Herald.
Sun-Times editor-in-chief Chris Fusco declined to comment when asked about the subpoena. However, the Tribune confirmed that it was served a subpoena on Feb. 5 and the Daily Herald confirmed that it was served a subpoena on Feb. 7.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation obtained a copy of the subpoena served on the Tribune. The subpoena, dated Jan. 29, orders the paper to bring “any and all articles and/or publications in the electronic archive containing the name ‘Laquan McDonald’ and/or ‘Jason Van Dyke’” to a pre-trial hearing before judge Vincent Gaughan on Feb. 1 at 9 a.m.
The articles that Van Dyke’s attorneys are interested in are already publicly available, and it is unclear why they subpoenaed the Tribune, the Sun-Times, and the Daily Herald for the articles instead of just searching through the newspapers' archives themselves.
Van Dyke’s legal team apparently plans to argue that extensive coverage of the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago-area newspapers has rendered a fair trial for Van Dyke impossible. Van Dyke’s attorneys plan to petition the court to move the trial out of Cook County, Illinois.
Anne Kavanagh, the media spokesperson for Van Dyke’s attorney Daniel Herbert, said that Van Dyke’s defense team subpoenaed the papers to support its motion for a change of venue. Kavanagh declined to comment further, citing a gag order issued by judge Gaughan.
This are not the first media subpoena in the Van Dyke case. In 2017, Van Dyke's attorneys tried to subpoena Jamie Kalven, an independent journalist who reported extensively on the Laquan McDonald murder and the Chicago police department's alleged attempts to cover it up. Judge Gaughan quashed that subpoena.
Attorneys representing Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke subpoenaed the Daily Herald and two other Chicago-area papers on Jan. 29, 2018, ordering the papers to produce copies of all stories about Van Dyke’s fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald in 2014.
Van Dyke has been charged with murder in connection with the fatal 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager. His trial is scheduled to begin later this year.
Anne Kavanagh, the media spokesperson for Van Dyke’s attorney Daniel Herbert, said that Van Dyke’s defense team subpoenaed three newspapers — the Daily Herald, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun-Times — to support a motion for a change of venue. Kavanagh declined to comment further, citing a gag order issued by judge Gaughan.
Van Dyke’s legal team apparently plans to argue that extensive coverage of the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago-area newspapers has rendered a fair trial for Van Dyke impossible. Van Dyke’s attorneys plan to petition the court to move the trial out of Cook County, Illinois. The Daily Herald is based in Arlington Heights, a suburb of Chicago that is part of Cook County.
The Daily Herald told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that it was served a subpoena on Feb. 7, 2018. The Chicago Sun-Times declined to comment on the subpoena, and the Tribune said that it was served a subpoena on Feb. 5 and planned to contest it.
A copy of the subpoena to the Tribune, obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, orders the paper to bring “any and all articles and/or publications in the electronic archive containing the name ‘Laquan McDonald’ and/or ‘Jason Van Dyke’” to a hearing before judge Vincent Gaughan on Feb. 1 at 9 a.m.
The articles that Van Dyke’s attorneys are interested in are already publicly available, and it is unclear why they subpoenaed Daily Herald, the Tribune, and the Sun-Times for the articles instead of just searching through the newspapers' archives themselves.
This are not the first media subpoena in the Van Dyke case. In 2017, Van Dyke's attorneys tried to subpoena Jamie Kalven, an independent journalist who reported extensively on the Laquan McDonald murder and the Chicago police department's alleged attempts to cover it up. Judge Gaughan quashed that subpoena.
On Jan. 29, 2018, the Strafford County Attorney’s Office filed a motion to compel the Foster’s Daily Democrat newspaper to turn over an unpublished jailhouse interview that one of its reporters, Brian Early, had conducted with Joshua Flynn, who is on trial for sexual assault.
The “Motion to Compel Non-Confidential Work Product” asks the Strafford County Superior Court to order Foster’s to turn over “all recordings, notes, memoranda, drafts, documents, and any material memorizing its interview with the defendant, Joshua Flynn.”
According to Foster’s, Early conducted an interview with Flynn at the Strafford County House of Corrections on June 15, 2017, but the paper never published the interview.
New Hampshire’s state constitution includes a “shield law,” a provision that protects journalists from being forced to testify about or disclose certain information related to their reporting.
In the motion to compel, Assistant County Attorney Joachim Barth argues that the shield law does not apply to Early’s interview with Flynn, because the law is intended to allow reporters to protect the identities of their confidential sources and Flynn’s identity is already public.
“At the outset, under the facts here, Mr. Flynn is not a confidential source,” Barth writes in the motion. “He disclosed his intention to conduct an interview with Foster’s both on recorded telephone conversations and in monitored emails; and, Foster’s reporter Brian Early disclosed to undersigned counsel both his intention to conduct an interview with Mr. Flynn, and then confirmed afterwards that he had done so. Moreover, both parties disclosed that the interview concerned the sexual assaults at issue.”
Barth wrote in the motion that the prosecution wants Early to turn over material related to the unpublished interview with Flynn so that it can learn in advance what Flynn plans to say at the trial.
“While Mr. Flynn has previously confessed to the sexual assaults, his telephone and email conversations concerning the Foster’s interview indicate that he now attempts to advance a new, exculpatory account of events," Barth writes, adding that "there is a reasonable possibility that obtaining the defendant's factual claims of a defense will afford the State an opportunity to prepare and offer evidence showing such claims to be demonstrably false.”
On Feb. 7, 2018, Greg Sullivan, the attorney representing Foster’s, filed an opposition to the prosecution’s motion to compel. Sullivan argues that New Hampshire's shield law protects journalists from being forced to reveal any unpublished information, not just the identities of their confidential sources, in court.
“Courts have long recognized that a government that requires the press to produce to it unpublished materials degrades the autonomy and independence needed by the press to fulfill its role in educating and informing the citizenry,” Sullivan writes in the opposition.
Nora Donaghy, a journalist and producer working on a documentary series about controversial record producer Marion “Suge” Knight, had her phone seized and searched by two police officers on Jan. 18, 2018, according to a sealed declaration filed in court and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter. She has also been subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury about her interview with Knight.
That morning, two police officers visited Donaghy at her home in Los Angeles and presented her with a search warrant, according to a declaration that she filed with the court. The declaration was filed under seal but obtained by THR.
"One of the officers told me that I was required by the warrant to hand over my cellphone,” Donaghy wrote in the declaration. “They also asked me for my passcode and asked me to type the passcode into the phone in their presence to make sure it worked. Believing I had no alternative and frightened by the unexpected arrival of two homicide officers at my home, early in the morning, I gave them my iPhone and the passcode and showed them it worked.”
In the declaration, Donaghy stated that her phone contained "highly sensitive" information, including unpublished work and communications about sources.
THR reports that Donaghy and a colleague, William Erb, are documentary filmmakers working on a six-part series about Death Row Records, the rap label that Knight co-founded. The two interviewed Knight in prison for the documentary series, which is being produced by eOne and will air later this year on the BET network.
In 2015, Knight was arrested and charged with murder after a fatal hit-and-run collision on a movie set that killed his friend Terry Carter. Knight has also been suspected of involvement in the unsolved 1996 murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, who was signed to his label, and the 1997 murder of rapper Biggie Smalls. THR reports that Donaghy and Erb interviewed Knight about the Tupac murder for the upcoming BET series.
According to THR, Donaghy and Erb have been subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury about the interview with Knight, and attorneys representing the filmmakers have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that California’s shield law prevents the state from forcing journalists to testify about their work.
“This is the kind of gross overreaching that California's shield law and related provisions have been designed to prevent,” the motion to quash the subpoena states, according to THR.
On Jan. 26, THR reporter Eriq Gardner reported on Twitter that the judge overseeing the case ruled on the motion to quash, but the judge's ruling was not made public.
A quick update on this. There has been a ruling, but the judge has ordered the entire thing under seal so unclear the result. Will update further when I know more. https://t.co/mtTXxljQgb
— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) January 26, 2018
Rap mogul Suge Knight appears in court for a arraignment hearing in his murder trial in Los Angeles, California, on April 30, 2015.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,returned in full,True,law enforcement,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['UNKNOWN'],None,None,Journalist,warrant,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2018-02-02 06:39:42.720508+00:00,2021-10-28 19:00:12.290635+00:00,Documentary journalist William Erb subpoenaed to testify before grand jury,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/documentary-journalist-william-erb-subpoenaed-testify-grand-jury/,2021-10-28 19:00:12.239155+00:00,,LegalOrder object (13),(2018-02-06 12:00:00+00:00) LAT update,Subpoena/Legal Order,"Two TV Journalists Fight Grand Jury Subpoena After Interviewing Suge Knight in Prison (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/two-tv-journalists-fight-grand-jury-subpoena-interviewing-suge-knight-prison-1077357) via The Hollywood Reporter, Prosecutors use aggressive tactics against Suge Knight and his team, sparking civil liberties concerns (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-suge-knight-tactics-20180206-story.html) via Los Angeles Times",,,William Erb (eOne),,2018-01-17,False,Los Angeles,California (CA),34.05223,-118.24368,"William Erb, a journalist and producer working on a documentary series about controversial record producer Marion “Suge” Knight, was subpoenaed on Jan. 17, 2018, to testify before a grand jury, according to a sealed declaration filed in court and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.
THR reports that Erb and a colleague, Nora Donaghy, are documentary filmmakers working on a six-part series about Death Row Records, the rap label that Knight co-founded. The two interviewed Knight in prison for the documentary series, which is being produced by eOne and will air later this year on the BET network.
In 2015, Knight was arrested and charged with murder after a fatal hit-and-run collision on a movie set that killed his friend Terry Carter. Knight has also been suspected of involvement in the unsolved 1996 murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, who was signed to his label, and the 1997 murder of rapper Biggie Smalls. THR reports that Erb and Donaghy interviewed Knight about the Tupac murder for the upcoming BET series.
In a sealed court filing obtained by THR, Erb stated that he received a call from a police investigator last year who told him that he had broken the law by interviewing Knight in prison. Erb also said in the declaration that two detectives visited him at his home on Jan. 17, 2018, and served him a grand jury subpoena.
Attorneys for Erb and Donaghy have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that California’s shield law prevents the state from forcing journalists to testify about their work.
“This is the kind of gross overreaching that California's shield law and related provisions have been designed to prevent,” the motion to quash the subpoena states, according to THR.
On Jan. 26, THR reporter Eriq Gardner reported on Twitter that the judge overseeing the case ruled on the motion to quash, but the judge's ruling was not made public.
A quick update on this. There has been a ruling, but the judge has ordered the entire thing under seal so unclear the result. Will update further when I know more. https://t.co/mtTXxljQgb
— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) January 26, 2018
Rap mogul Suge Knight appears in court for a arraignment hearing in his murder trial in Los Angeles, California, on April 30, 2015.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['UNKNOWN'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,None,,,,, 2021-03-08 17:38:25.567865+00:00,2021-03-08 17:38:25.567865+00:00,Subpoena for WCAX-TV footage of police shooting quashed; decision unsealed more than a year later,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/subpoena-for-wcax-tv-footage-of-police-shooting-quashed-decision-unsealed-more-than-a-year-later/,2021-03-08 17:38:25.516614+00:00,,LegalOrder object (14),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2018-01-17,False,Burlington,Vermont (VT),44.47588,-73.21207,"CBS-affiliate station WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vermont, was subpoenaed by the Washington County State’s Attorney in Vermont on Jan. 17, 2018, for video footage of a fatal police shooting of a suspect at Montpelier High School the day before. The subpoena was issued as part of an inquest — a closed-door investigative proceeding overseen by the court — after the State’s Attorney learned that the station had a 38-minute video recording, including the shooting of the suspect by the police.
According to court records, a suspected armed robber fled to the grounds of Montpelier High School where police shot and killed him after he refused to surrender his gun. The Washington County State’s Attorney convened an inquest a day after the shooting to determine whether police had acted lawfully after it was found that the suspect was armed with a BB gun.
On Jan. 26, WCAX-TV filed a motion to quash the subpoena, citing the state shield law that protects journalists from compelled disclosure of information and sources. The court granted the station’s motion to quash, making it the first under the state’s media shield law, which was enacted in 2017. The ruling, however, remained sealed as the state’s investigation of the shooting continued.
In April 2018, the inquest was completed and the state decided that it would not bring any charges against the police officers involved in the shooting. WCAX-TV then moved to unseal the trial court’s decision to quash the subpoena. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the order was confidential because it concerned an inquest.
The station appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing the court’s order should be made accessible to the public under the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records. The station also argued that making the decision public was important because of the media shield law precedent.
The Vermont Supreme Court granted the appeal; the trial court’s decision was reversed on July 19, 2019, and its decision to quash the subpoena was unsealed. In that decision, the court noted that the state prosecutors failed to establish that the information in the video recording could not be sought through alternative sources.
Emilie Raguso, senior reporter for Berkeleyside, was subpoenaed in December 2017 to testify in a criminal trial about statements made by one of her sources. Raguso fought the subpoena, and it was dropped on Jan. 2, 2018.
Raguso had been reporting on a man named William Turner, who had a string of arrests for crimes involving children, including public indecency and harassing a child.
Raguso told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that an investigator with the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office contacted her, both through email and Facebook, to ask her about statements that one of Raguso's victims had made. Raguso had used the victim’s statements in her reporting.
In mid-December 2017, she said, the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office investigator showed up at her apartment and issued her a subpoena to testify in Turner’s criminal trial. Raguso had been covering the case for months but, as a result of the subpoena, was unable to hear and report on the testimony of the main victim in the case.
“It will impact and limit how I am able to cover the story, which does not serve the community,” she said of the subpoena.
Raguso wrote in a Dec. 26 declaration that as a journalist, she must remain objective and detached from active participation in stories that she covers.
“My participation as a witness will also compromise my ability and effectiveness in covering future stories about Defendant Turner — whom I have been covering for some time now — thereby further affecting my ability to do my job in the future.”
Her attorneys filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Dec. 27, arguing that California’s “press shield law” protected Raguso from being compelled to testify about unpublished information.
“The subpoena that was issued by the public defender in this case to Emilie was not in any way limited to just published material,” Zachary Colbeth, Raguso’s attorney, told the Freedom of the Press Foundation in an email. “We also believe that had Emilie been compelled to testify, both the public defender and the prosecution would have inevitably wandered, or been tempted to wander, into seeking testimony about unpublished materials.”
The subpoena was dropped on Jan. 2, 2018. According to Colbeth, the public defender's office withdrew the subpoena after questioning the alleged victim in the case, making the motion to quash the subpoena moot.
“It was disturbing to me how aggressive they were in trying to get me to testify,” Raguso said. “To bring me in as a third party seemed like an inappropriate role for a journalist to have.”
Citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal was arrested by the Laredo Police Department and charged with two felony counts of “misuse of official information” on Dec. 13, 2017.
Villarreal — an independent journalist based in Laredo, Texas, who is often known by her nickname “La Gordiloca” — published the name of a Border Patrol agent who died by suicide on her Facebook page in April, before the Laredo Police Department’s official release about the incident.
The Laredo Morning Times reported on Dec. 15 that a veteran patrol officer, Barbara J. Goodman, provided the name of the agent to Villarreal, but the journalist denies Goodman was her source. Investigators obtained subpoenas for the phone records of both Villarreal and Goodman.
“Misuse of official information” charges in Texas require that a person obtain nonpublic information from a public official and disseminate it with the intention of benefiting or harming another entity. Authorities argued in the criminal complaint filed against Villarreal that she benefited from publishing the agent’s name by gaining Facebook followers.
Texas Monthly reported that the complaint reads, “Villarreal’s access to this information and releasing it on ‘Lagordiloca News Laredo Tx,’ before the official release by the Laredo Police Department Public Information Officer placed her ‘Facebook’ page ahead of the local official news media which in turn gained her popularity in Facebook.”
According to The Washington Post, Villarreal turned herself in voluntarily after a warrant was issued for her arrest, but believes she is innocent of wrongdoing and that the police are attempting to silence her reporting.
Villarreal and her legal representation were not immediately available for comment.
Freelance reporter Kelly Davis was subpoenaed by attorneys representing San Diego County, California, on Nov. 9, 2017. She was ordered to testify at a deposition and turn over materials related to her reporting on the high number of deaths in San Diego County jails. On Feb. 2, 2018, a federal magistrate ruled in favor of Davis, defeating the subpoena.
Davis has been writing about deaths in San Diego jails for years. In 2013, while working at San Diego City Beat, she and colleague Dave Maass reported that San Diego County had the highest inmate mortality rate out of California’s largest jail systems. Since then, her reporting has been cited in a number of wrongful death lawsuits and complaints filed against San Diego County.
The widow of Kris Nesmith, an inmate who died while in prison, sued the County of San Diego in 2015. At the time, Davis wrote an article about the lawsuit for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
In November 2017, attorneys for San Diego County subpoenaed Davis, seeking her testimony as well as her unpublished research related to her reporting.
The subpoena orders Davis to appear at a deposition on December 11 and to produce “any and all documents, notes, and recordings, including in electronic format, that you relied on when reporting and/or publishing that the San Diego County’s incarceration mortality rate ‘leads in California’s largest jails.’”
“They wanted everything, written or electronic,” Davis told the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “It was a huge fishing investigation to try to get every nook and cranny of information that I had.”
Maass, who co-wrote the 2013 San Diego City Beat story with Davis, was not subpoenaed in the case. He never wrote specifically about the Kris Nesmith case, and he no longer lives in San Diego or writes about the county’s jails. He criticized San Diego County for attempting to subpoena Davis.
“This subpoena is of course frightening when it comes to press freedom, but as someone who worked on these stories, it’s concerning that this is how they address safety issues in their jails,” he said. “Rather than address them and stop killing people, the county comes after the messengers who did this research.”
After Davis’ attorneys objected to the subpoena, San Diego County filed a motion to compel Davis’ testimony. In the motion to compel, attorneys for San Diego County argued that, since Davis’ reporting would be cited during the trial, they should be allowed to question her like an expert witness.
“They wanted to cut undercut my reporting and to challenge the methodology that my colleague and I initially used,” Davis said.
On Feb. 2, federal magistrate judge Andrew Schopler ruled in favor of Davis, defeating the subpoena. Davis will not have to testify or hand over her unpublished reporting materials.
San Diego County did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Jamie Kalven, a reporter who was the first to report the details of the shooting of teenager Laquan McDonald by Chicago police in 2014 — received a subpoena on Oct. 16, 2017 to testify and reveal details about his sources at a pre-trial hearing in the murder case of former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke.
Kalven is an independent journalist based in Chicago and the founder of Invisible Institute, a journalistic production company focused on government accountability. He won a George Polk award for his coverage of the McDonald case.
In February 2015, he published an article in Slate titled “Sixteen Shots,” which reported on evidence, including an autopsy report and statements from witnesses, that contradicted the Chicago police department’s public account of McDonald’s shooting. Kalven also reported on the existence of an unreleased police dash-cam video, which had captured the shooting. After public pressure and a court decision forced the city of Chicago to release the dash-cam video to the public, officer Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder.
As part of his defense strategy, Van Dyke’s lawyer is trying to force Kalven to testify about his sources.
Kalven told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that he received a subpoena at his office on Oct. 16, 2017, ordering him to appear in court at 9 a.m. on the following day. Kalven said that he did not attend the Oct. 17 hearing and that his attorney informed Van Dyke’s attorney that he could not attend the hearing on such short notice.
During the hearing, Van Dyke’s defense attorney argued that Kalven needed to be called in to testify, according to an audio recording of the hearing taped by a journalist in attendance. Van Dyke’s legal team hopes to show that Kalven received leaked documents from the police oversight agency investigating the shooting and that he could have influenced potential witnesses in the case by interviewing them about the murder while reporting the Slate piece.
Chicago judge Vincent Gaughan seemed receptive to the defense team’s argument, though he did acknowledge that Illinois’ “press shield law” prevents journalists from being compelled to name their sources in some circumstances.
“The reporter’s privilege concerning the source will have to be litigated,” he said.
On Nov. 3, Kalven’s attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena, citing the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act.
The state law requires a person seeking to compel a reporter to testify about their confidential sources to file a detailed application with the court, which must include "the name of the reporter and of the news medium with which he or she was connected at the time the information sought was obtained; the specific information sought and its relevancy to the proceedings; and [a] specific public interest which would be adversely affected if the factual information sought were not disclosed."
The law also sets a high bar for a court to approve such an application; the court must find "that all other available sources of information have been exhausted and [that] disclosure of the information sought is essential to the protection of the public interest involved."
Kalven's motion to quash the subpoena stated that Van Dyke's legal team had not filed an application to overcome his reporter's privilege and therefore had not met their burden on the Reporter's Privilege Act. Van Dyke's attorney later filed an opposition to Kalven's motion to quash the subpoena. This opposition was filed under seal, so it is not clear what legal argument it makes.
On Dec. 5, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (a founding partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker) led a group of 18 journalism and press freedom publications in filing an amicus brief in support of Kalven’s motion to quash the subpoena. In the amicus brief, RCFP wrote that “the public interest in protecting confidential sources is particularly compelling in this case” and argued that that the Reporter’s Privilege Act should protect Kalven from being forced to testify about his sources.
On Dec. 6, the court will hear arguments for and against the motion to quash the subpoena.
Kalven said that even if the motion to quash is denied, he will only answer questions to the extent that his sources are not jeopardized.
“I can imagine no situation in which I would reveal my source,” he said.
Kalven is not new to requests to surrender the details of his work. In 2005, the City of Chicago subpoenaed Kalven, seeking his notes, tapes, and other records gathered during reporting on abuse of police power. When he refused to comply, the court moved to hold him in contempt, but the threat dissipated when the case was resolved.
“I don’t want to say that I’m completely unconcerned about this,” he said. “But I have no internal conflict or anguish about what I should do.”
Police in Laredo, Texas, subpoenaed the phone records of independent journalist Priscilla Villarreal for the fourth and final time on Oct. 6, 2017, as part of an investigation into a confidential source.
Villarreal — based in Laredo, Texas, and often known by her pen name “La Gordiloca” — published the name of a Border Patrol agent who died by suicide on her Facebook page in April, before the Laredo Police Department’s official release about the incident. The LPD opened an investigation to identify who leaked Villarreal the name.
According to an arrest warrant approval form, an LPD officer first subpoenaed Villarreal’s toll records, or call logs, on July 27 and then again on Sept. 14. A third subpoena was issued on Sept. 28 seeking copies of Villarreal’s text messages from July 26 through Sept. 13.
On Oct. 6, the investigating officer sent a fourth and final subpoena seeking text messages from Jan. 1 through July 26. It was not immediately clear when AT&T provided the requested records, but references to phone records provided by the telecommunication company indicate that the records were turned over.
Villarreal was arrested in December and charged with two third-degree felonies for “misuse of official information.” An attorney representing Villarreal filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the charges in February 2018.
“Today, in the State of Texas, it is illegal to simply ask a public servant for information if the information sought happens to be described in an obscure list of information categories that are subject to discretionary disclosure — rather than mandatory,” attorney Oscar Peña wrote. “The only thing keeping journalists from being prosecuted for this every day is the mercy of the police, the prosecutors and the political cost attendant. This too is alarming.”
A Texas state judge ruled in favor of Villarreal in March 2018 and dismissed the charges, finding that the statute the journalist was charged under was unconstitutionally vague.
In April 2019, Villarreal filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Laredo, Webb County and 10 law enforcement officials. The case was initially dismissed by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2020, but a federal court of appeals reversed the decision in November 2021.
In August 2022, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a substitute decision with the addition of a dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and a concurring opinion from Judge James C. Ho.
JT Morris, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who is representing Villarreal’s appeal, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the appellate court decided to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning that the entire bench of active judges for the court reheard the case.
Arguments before the judges were held in January 2023, Morris said, and the court’s ruling is now pending.
Police in Laredo, Texas, subpoenaed the phone records of independent journalist Priscilla Villarreal for the third time on Sept. 28, 2017, as part of an investigation into a confidential source, according to filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Her communication records have been subpoenaed at least four times.
Villarreal — known by her pen name “La Gordiloca” — published the name of a Border Patrol agent who died by suicide on her Facebook page in April, before the Laredo Police Department’s official release about the incident. The LPD opened an investigation to identify who leaked Villarreal the name.
According to an arrest warrant approval form, an LPD officer first subpoenaed Villarreal’s call log records on July 27 and then again on Sept. 14.
On Sept. 28, the officer sent a third subpoena seeking text messages from July 26 through Sept. 13 for the phone numbers belonging to both Villarreal and her suspected source. It was not immediately clear when AT&T provided the requested records, but references to phone records provided by the telecommunication company indicate that the records were turned over.
An additional subpoena for Villarreal’s text messages was filed on Oct. 6.
Villarreal was arrested in December and charged with two third-degree felonies for “misuse of official information.” An attorney representing Villarreal filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the charges in February 2018.
“Today, in the State of Texas, it is illegal to simply ask a public servant for information if the information sought happens to be described in an obscure list of information categories that are subject to discretionary disclosure — rather than mandatory,” attorney Oscar Peña wrote. “The only thing keeping journalists from being prosecuted for this every day is the mercy of the police, the prosecutors and the political cost attendant. This too is alarming.”
A Texas state judge ruled in favor of Villarreal in March 2018 and dismissed the charges, finding that the statute the journalist was charged under was unconstitutionally vague.
In April 2019, Villarreal filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Laredo, Webb County and 10 law enforcement officials. The case was initially dismissed by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2020, but a federal court of appeals reversed the decision in November 2021.
In August 2022, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a substitute decision with the addition of a dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and a concurring opinion from Judge James C. Ho.
JT Morris, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who is representing Villarreal’s appeal, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the appellate court decided to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning that the entire bench of active judges for the court reheard the case.
Arguments before the judges were held in January 2023, Morris said, and the court’s ruling is now pending.
Police in Laredo, Texas, subpoenaed the phone records of independent journalist Priscilla Villarreal for the second time on Sept. 14, 2017, as part of an investigation into a confidential source, according to filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Her communication records have been subpoenaed at least four times.
Villarreal — known by her pen name “La Gordiloca” — published the name of a Border Patrol agent who died by suicide on her Facebook page in April, before the Laredo Police Department’s official release about the incident. The LPD opened an investigation to identify who leaked Villarreal the name.
According to an arrest warrant approval form, an LPD officer first subpoenaed the call log records for the cellphones of Villarreal and her suspected source on July 27. On Sept. 14, the officer sent a second subpoena seeking call logs from Jan. 1 through Sept. 13 for the phone numbers belonging to both Villarreal and her suspected source. It was not immediately clear when AT&T provided the requested records, but references to phone records provided by the telecommunication company indicate that the records were turned over.
Two additional subpoenas for Villarreal’s text messages were filed on Sept. 28 and Oct. 6.
Villarreal was arrested in December and charged with two third-degree felonies for “misuse of official information.” An attorney representing Villarreal filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the charges in February 2018.
“Today, in the State of Texas, it is illegal to simply ask a public servant for information if the information sought happens to be described in an obscure list of information categories that are subject to discretionary disclosure — rather than mandatory,” attorney Oscar Peña wrote. “The only thing keeping journalists from being prosecuted for this every day is the mercy of the police, the prosecutors and the political cost attendant. This too is alarming.”
A Texas state judge ruled in favor of Villarreal in March 2018 and dismissed the charges, finding that the statute the journalist was charged under was unconstitutionally vague.
In April 2019, Villarreal filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Laredo, Webb County and 10 law enforcement officials. The case was initially dismissed by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2020, but a federal court of appeals reversed the decision in November 2021.
In August 2022, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a substitute decision with the addition of a dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and a concurring opinion from Judge James C. Ho.
JT Morris, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who is representing Villarreal’s appeal, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the appellate court decided to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning that the entire bench of active judges for the court reheard the case.
Arguments before the judges were held in January 2023, Morris said, and the court’s ruling is now pending.
Police in Laredo, Texas, subpoenaed the phone records of independent journalist Priscilla Villarreal on July 27, 2017, in an attempt to identify a confidential source, according to filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. After her phone carrier turned over the requested information, three additional subpoenas were issued seeking more of her communication records.
Villarreal — known by her pen name “La Gordiloca” — published the name of a Border Patrol agent who died by suicide on her Facebook page in April, before the Laredo Police Department’s official release about the incident. The LPD opened an investigation to identify who leaked Villarreal the name.
According to an arrest warrant approval form, an LPD officer obtained search warrants for call log records from the cellphones of Villarreal and her suspected source. The form states that the officer faxed the subpoenas on July 27 and AT&T provided the requested records several weeks later. Additional subpoenas for call logs and text messages from Villarreal’s phone number were filed on Sept. 14, Sept. 28 and Oct. 6.
Villarreal was arrested in December and charged with two third-degree felonies for “misuse of official information.” An attorney representing Villarreal filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the charges in February 2018.
“Today, in the State of Texas, it is illegal to simply ask a public servant for information if the information sought happens to be described in an obscure list of information categories that are subject to discretionary disclosure — rather than mandatory,” attorney Oscar Peña wrote. “The only thing keeping journalists from being prosecuted for this every day is the mercy of the police, the prosecutors and the political cost attendant. This too is alarming.”
A Texas state judge ruled in favor of Villarreal in March 2018 and dismissed the charges, finding that the statute the journalist was charged under was unconstitutionally vague.
In April 2019, Villarreal filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Laredo, Webb County and 10 law enforcement officials. The case was initially dismissed by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2020, but a federal court of appeals reversed the decision in November 2021.
In August 2022, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a substitute decision with the addition of a dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and a concurring opinion from Judge James C. Ho.
JT Morris, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who is representing Villarreal’s appeal, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the appellate court decided to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning that the entire bench of active judges for the court reheard the case.
Arguments before the judges were held in January 2023, Morris said, and the court’s ruling is now pending.
Editor’s Note: This article has been rewritten to include new information from court filings clarifying the timeline of the subpoena and Priscilla Villarreal’s subsequent lawsuit.
Todd Wessell — editor at Journal & Topics Media Group in Des Plaines, Illinois — was issued a subpoena In May 2017 as part of a defamation lawsuit filed by police Sgt. Michael Holdman against the city of Des Plaines, Des Plaines Police Chief William Kushner, and police Sgt. John Rice.
In 2015, Wessell wrote an article about Des Plaines police officers viewing a pornographic image on a department computer inside the Des Plaines Police Station. The article relied on an anonymous source who gave the paper a copy of a photograph that showed officers looking at the image.
Holdman was accused of leaking the photograph to the paper and demoted. In 2017, he filed a lawsuit against the City of Des Plaines, the police chief, and a fellow officer.
In May 2017, the defendants in that lawsuit subpoenaed Wessell, seeking to uncover the identity of his source for the 2015 story.
Wessell told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that he believes the defendants subpoenaed him in an attempt to confirm that Sgt. Holdman was the leaker, which would potentially exonerate them of wrongdoing.
In accordance with a court order, Wessell ultimately agreed to answer a single yes/no question.
“I was not going to reveal any source whatsoever, I was steadfast in that,” he said. “In the settlement, I agreed to them asking me one question. The one question was, ‘Did I get the information, the picture, from Holdman?’ and the answer was ‘no,’ and that was it. It was over. So they have no idea where I got it and they never will.”
Although Wessell was not forced to reveal his source, the case presented a financial burden for him.
“It was a very strange case to begin with and I knew we were in the right,” he said. “My lawyer had to make motions and go to court and it cost a lot of money, you know.”
The Des Plaines police department did not immediately return a request for comment. Holdman’s defamation lawsuit remains unresolved.
Dana Ferguson, a reporter with Argus Leader Media, a South Dakota news outlet that forms part of the USAToday network, received a subpoena on May 8, 2017. The subpoena from the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office ordered the reporter to testify in a criminal trial of an individual who allegedly helped the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe in an aborted attempt to open a recreational marijuana resort. On May 15, prosecutors withdrew the subpoena, according to USA Today.
A cannabis plant. The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe attempted to set up a marijuana resort in Flandreau, South Dakota but later suspended the project in the wake of legal pressure.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,other testimony,['DROPPED'],None,None,Journalist,None,State,None,False,[],,,,, 2019-10-23 17:42:58.819197+00:00,2023-07-19 19:04:11.320323+00:00,Puerto Rico Department of Justice executes search warrant against three student media outlets,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/puerto-rico-department-justice-executes-search-warrant-against-three-student-media-outlets/,2023-07-19 19:04:11.138848+00:00,,LegalOrder object (2),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,,,2017-05-05,False,San Juan,Puerto Rico (PR),None,None,"The Puerto Rico Department of Justice issued a search warrant for the Facebook accounts of three university publications on May 5, 2017, seeking information about student protesters who had rallied that April against austerity cuts at a meeting of the University of Puerto Rico's governing board.
Seven of those students will go on trial this November for interrupting the meeting. That interruption was part of a lengthy student-led protest movement against austerity cuts that effectively shut down the majority of the university’s eleven campuses for several months in the spring of 2017.
Superior Court Judge Rafael E. Jimenez-Rivera signed off on the search warrant, which requested Facebook data covering the period between April 26-28, 2017, from three student publications: Pulso Estudiantil, UPR Dialogue, and Centro de Comunicación Estudiantil.
Facebook provided some 1,553 pages of information from Pulso Estudiantil's Facebook account to the Puerto Rico Department of Justice, including private messages, photos, videos, comments and the names of those who commented on the account’s posts. Facebook provided another 1,500 pages from the account of Centro de Comunicación Estudiantil, according to a statement from CCE spokesman Gabriel Casals published by Metro Puerto Rico. Casals went on to demand that the charges against the student protesters be dropped.
The terms of the search warrant prevented Facebook from notifying the impacted parties for 90 days. Neither Facebook nor the Department of Justice notified the student media outlets about the search warrant after that period expired, according to a report from Pulso Estudiantil. Facebook’s policies require such notification, NoticEl reported, citing an attorney from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and so this constitutes a lapse on the part of the social networking site.
Editors at Pulso Estudiantil only learned of the search warrant on Sept. 27, 2019, when a staffer for Denis Márquez Lebrón, a member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, contacted them via Facebook about the matter. Lawyers representing the seven students on trial had uncovered the documents in the course of the discovery process, Marisol Nazario, executive director of Pulso Estudiantil, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
"We consider this to be a violation of our freedom of the press and our privacy," Nazario said. “If this happened to us, this could happen to any news outlet in Puerto Rico.”
At the time the search warrant was issued, now-Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced was then Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Justice. When asked about the warrant at a press conference in October, Vázquez Garced said the warrant was issued properly as part of a criminal investigation, El Nuevo Dia reported.
A lawyer representing one of the seven students on trial for interrupting the university board meeting plans to challenge the legality of the search warrant, Metro Puerto Rico reported.
Márquez Lebrón introduced a House resolution on Sept. 19, 2019, calling for the body to investigate the matter and weigh in on whether the search warrant was constitutional.
"The House of Representatives must conduct an investigation in order to assess whether public security agencies are complying with the requirements established in the Constitution of Puerto Rico when accessing electronically stored information," the resolution says.
University of Puerto Rico students protest budget cuts in the spring of 2017. In May, the Department of Justice issued warrants for three student publications' Facebook accounts seeking information on student protesters.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],Facebook,other,Third-party,warrant,Federal,None,False,None,"Centro de Comunicación Estudiantil, Pulso Estudiantil, UPR Dialogue",student journalism,,, 2017-07-30 22:34:31.227819+00:00,2023-10-24 15:26:32.700193+00:00,Reporter John Sepulvado subpoenaed to testify in Bundy occupation trial,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/reporter-john-sepulvado-subpoenaed-testify-bundy-occupation-trial/,2023-10-24 15:26:32.588592+00:00,,LegalOrder object (1),,Subpoena/Legal Order,"Judge quashes subpoena of former OPB reporter in refuge occupation trial (http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/02/judge_quashes_subpoena_of_form.html) via The Oregonian, A Former OPB Journalist Just Beat the Trump Administration in Court (http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2017/03/01/18873290/a-former-opb-journalist-just-beat-the-trump-administration-in-court) via The Portland Mercury, Sepulvado's motion to quash subpoena (http://issuu.com/maxinebernstein/docs/quashsubpoenaopb?e=27254625/44712638)",,,John Sepulvado (Oregon Public Broadcasting),,2017-02-16,False,Portland,Oregon (OR),45.52345,-122.67621,"Radio journalist John Sepulvado was subpoenaed on Feb. 16, 2017, to testify at trial about an interview he conducted with Ryan Bundy, one of the leaders of the group that forcibly occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. Sepulvado conducted that interview while still a journalist at Oregon Public Broadcasting; he later moved to California and now works for San Francisco radio station KQED.
Federal prosecutors first asked Sepulvado in 2016 to voluntarily testify about the interview. He refused, and the Obama administration's Department of Justice declined to issue a subpoena that would force him to testify.
But that changed under the Trump administration. Shortly after being sworn in as attorney general, Jeff Sessions personally approved the subpoena, which was then served on Sepulvado.
Although the prosecution did not explicitly ask Sepulvado to testify about his confidential sources, but Sepulvado later said that defense attorneys looking to discredit his testimony began asking him about his confidential sources.
In a first-person piece for The Portland Mercury, Sepulvado wrote that he believed it was his responsibility to fight the subpoena and protect his sources.
"To violate the trust of my named source, and the audience, by testifying for or against anyone in a criminal trial would erode both my credibility and OPB’s, impeding our ability to report freely under the First Amendment," he wrote. "My unnamed sources are people who have entrusted me to protect their identity no matter what, in exchange for information of importance to the public."
On Feb. 24, a federal judge in Portland ruled in Sepulvado's favor and quashed the subpoena.
Leader of a group of armed protesters Ammon Bundy talks to the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, January 8, 2016.
",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,,"Department of Justice, militia",,,