United States Second Circuit

Summary judgment to plaintiff newspaper, on claim that its reporters' telephone records are privileged from a potential grand jury subpoena, is vacated as: 1) whatever rights a newspaper or reporter has to refuse disclosure in response to a subpoena extends to the newspaper's or reporter's telephone records in the possession of a third party provider; 2) regardless of whether a common law reporter's privilege exists, it would be overcome as a matter of law in this case; and 3) no First Amendment protection is available to plaintiff in this case in light of Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/01/2006
• Published 08/01/2006

Judges

• Before:  KEARSE, WINTER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• James P. Fleissner, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Debra Riggs Bonamici, Daniel W. Gillogly, Assistant United States Attorneys, Chicago, Illinois, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants., Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, New York (Susan Buckley, Brian Markley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York, New York, on the brief;  George Freeman, New York Times Company, New York, New York, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee.