The following list provides a sampling of noteworthy cases in which LSKS has defended reporters and news organizations against subpoenas.

Hodson v. Al Roker Entertainment Inc, 39 Media L. Rptr. (BNA) 2593 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011). The firm successfully moved to quash a subpoena served by a criminal defendant on Al Roker Entertainment seeking outtakes from the defendant’s appearance on DEA, a television show broadcast on Spike TV that follows the activities of agents for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. The court held that the defendant had not established that the outtakes contained any “highly material facts critical to his defense in the criminal case” and had not made any efforts to seek the information contained in the outtakes from another source.

In re Subpoena to Jeffrey Goldberg, 693 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2010). LSKS successfully defended a former reporter for New Yorker magazine in quashing a subpoena issued by the Palestinian Authority in a lawsuit brought by an Israeli settler under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The court reaffirmed the principle that the qualified reporter’s privilege in civil actions extends to journalistic work-product that is not confidential, and recognized that the First Amendment is a significant factor to be weighed when analyzing discovery motions under the Federal Rules.

United States v. Coniglio (D.N.J. 2009). The firm represented a reporter for The Record in opposing a series of subpoenas that sought his testimony and unpublished work product for use as evidence in the federal corruption trial of a New Jersey State Senator. The court granted the motion to quash and issued rulings strongly protective of the reporter’s privilege, restricting his testimony to the verification of quotes attributed to the defendant in published news reports. Following the trial, LSKS won another subpoena battle when the court quashed the defendant’s subpoena seeking a tape recording of an interview The Record conducted with the United States Attorney who had authorized the prosecution, Chris Christie, who was then the Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey.

People v. Rocco (Cal. Super. Ct. 2009). When a criminal defendant subpoenaed four reporters for The Orange County Register to seek their newsgathering materials and testimony for his upcoming trial, LSKS successfully moved to quash the subpoenas in their entirety.

In re Trump, 37 Media L. Rptr. (BNA) 1469 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008).The firm successfully moved to quash a subpoena issued by Donald Trump to The New York Times’ Executive Editor, Bill Keller, and to limit substantially a second subpoena directed to the newspaper’s Publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, in a case in which Trump sued a reporter for The Times for defamation in New Jersey. Although the New Jersey court had authorized the subpoenas as seeking necessary and appropriate testimony, the New York court issued a protective order in an exercise of its discretion afforded under that state’s law.

State of Connecticut v. Golder (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008). LSKS successfully opposed a prosecutor’s motion seeking issuance of a subpoena for the testimony and notes of an Associated Press reporter who had conducted a jail house interview with a criminal defendant. In the first test of Connecticut’s recently enacted shield law, the court denied the prosecutor’s motion, finding that the state had failed to meet its burden under the law.

Commonwealth v. DeNaples (Dauphin Cty. C.C.P., Pa. 2008). LSKS represented reporters from The Associated Press and The Morning Call who were subpoenaed in connection with a Supreme Court-ordered inquiry into alleged grand jury leaks in connection with a high-profile perjury prosecution. The judge presiding over the inquiry quashed the subpoenas in their entirety.

Enterline v. Pocono Medical Center, 2008 WL 5192386 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2008). In a matter of first impression nationwide, LSKS successfully defended The Pocono Record in its effort to quash a subpoena seeking the identities of people who posted anonymous comments on the newspaper’s website. In quashing the subpoena, the court held that media companies have standing to assert the First Amendment rights of anonymous posters. This opinion represents a critical extension of the fast-evolving body of law related to the unmasking of anonymous online speakers.