Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Arnold FRIEDMAN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent. Joe SAMPSON et al., Real Parties in Interest.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
As there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, and in view of the fact that the issuance of an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation already made, we deem this to be a proper case for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate “in the first instance.” (Code Civ.Proc., § 1088.)
The following is undisputed.1 While a reporter for the Daily News, petitioner wrote a news article for the News about the Los Angeles Police Department. In the underlying civil action, plaintiff Joseph Sampson alleges that the City of Los Angeles defamed him in asserting that he leaked confidential information to petitioner. After trial commenced, the plaintiff subpoenaed petitioner, not a party to the underlying action, to testify as to whether the plaintiff was his source of information for the Daily News article. Petitioner moved to quash the subpoena, but his motion was denied. He requests that this court review the order of respondent court and order respondent court to quash the subpoena.
The minute order indicates that petitioner “refuses to testify regarding the identity of sources and other unpublished information pursuant to the Shield Law afforded to journalists.” 2
By order filed July 14, 1989, this court stayed respondent court's order of denial, requested opposition and notified the parties as to the court's intention to issue a peremptory writ. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180, 203 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 893.)
Petitioner contends that the Shield Law (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (b); Evid.Code, § 1070) protects him from testifying as to his source. Article 1, section 2, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution provides in pertinent part:
“A ․ reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, ․ shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body ․ for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed ․ or refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public.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, out takes, 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.” (Emphasis added.)
The Shield Law prohibits a court from punishing a non-party reporter for the refusal to disclose a confidential source and other unpublished information, including the information of who is not a source. (Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 190, 224–225, 124 Cal.Rptr. 427.) We conclude that petitioner must not be compelled to testify.
We address the contentions of real party in interest in opposition here and find that they are without merit. The Shield Law protects petitioner although petitioner has not been adjudged to be in contempt, because he faces contempt. Moreover, the Shield Law does not limit this court's jurisdiction to grant relief. (See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 14, 29, 201 Cal.Rptr. 207.)
The Shield Law's protection of petitioner under these circumstances is absolute, not qualified; the interest of nondisclosure need not be balanced against the policy of full disclosure of relevant evidence as the balancing test does not apply, here, because petitioner is a not a party to the underlying action. (Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268, 274, 279, 208 Cal.Rptr. 152, 690 P.2d 625.)
By telling the plaintiff's lawyers that plaintiff was not the source, petitioner has not “waived” the protection of the Shield Law. Real party acknowledges that the only case he cites to support this contention does not address the issue of waiver. (Liggett v. Superior Court, 211 Cal.App.3d 1461, 260 Cal.Rptr. 161 (1989)).
THEREFORE,
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, commanding respondent court to vacate its order of July 12, 1989 order of respondent court, denying petitioner's motion to quash subpoena, in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. C 534028, and enter a new and different order granting same.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because of the paltry record, the facts are taken from the verified petition and the declarations attached to the opposition.
2. The opposition states that the minute order is incorrect; respondent court has not yet ordered petitioner to testify, and a new minute order might be issued.
THE COURT: * FN* Before L. THAXTON HANSON, Acting P.J., and DEVICH and ORTEGA, JJ.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. B043234.
Decided: July 21, 1989
Court: Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)