The phone records of New York Times reporters are not protected by the First Amendment or a common law privilege from a subpoena issued by a Chicago grand jury, the 2nd Circuit ruled Tuesday. A divided panel declined to decide the issue of whether a common law privilege exists for reporters' phone records, but said, "any such privilege would be overcome by the present facts." The majority cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Branzburg v. Hayes decision on the First Amendment issue.
August 02, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The phone records of New York Times reporters are not protected by the First Amendment or a common law privilege from a subpoena issued by a Chicago grand jury, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
A divided panel declined to decide the issue of whether a common law privilege exists for reporters’ phone records, but said that “any such privilege would be overcome on the present facts” in The New York Times Co. v. Gonzalez, 05-2639.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
