Shield Law Protection Upheld in Civil Suits : Courts: State justices rule unanimously that journalists may not be jailed for refusing to surrender their notes, photos and other unpublished material.
In a victory for news organizations, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that journalists may not be jailed for refusing to surrender notes, photos and other unpublished data for use in civil suits arising from events they cover.
The court held unanimously that reporters are immune from being held in contempt for such refusals under California’s news shield law. The law, placed in the state Constitution in 1980, allows journalists to withhold confidential sources or “any unpublished information” obtained while gathering news.
The justices held last May that the shield law must give way, however, when a criminal defendant needs the disputed evidence to ensure a fair trial. But in Thursday’s decision, the court, in an opinion by Justice David N. Eagleson, said there was no comparable right in a civil case.
The ruling was welcomed as a “big jump” in press protections by C. Michael Cooley, attorney for the New York Times Co., owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press, whose photographer had refused requests to turn over unpublished accident photos to an automobile manufacturer being sued in a personal injury case.
“This decision underscores the will of the people back in 1980 to give broad protection to the press to gather news without concern that reporters will be repeatedly subject to civil subpoenas,” Cooley said.
Michael A. Zuk of Los Angeles, attorney for Volkswagen of America Inc., the defendant in the injury suit, said the ruling would unfairly impede plaintiffs and defendants from obtaining important evidence in civil cases.
“This prevents civil litigants from even getting into the arena where their needs can be weighed against the interests of journalists,” Zuk said. “It’s a very unfortunate decision.”
The case arose after News-Press photographer Robert Ponce took several photos of an auto accident on U.S. 101 in 1984. Two of the photographs were published in the newspaper. A passenger in a Volkswagen van, Jerome Sortomme, was injured and he and his wife sued the auto maker. Volkswagen sought the unpublished photos to aid in its defense and, after the paper refused, went to court.
Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Patrick L. McMahon ordered the News-Press to produce the photos so he could inspect them to see if the paper’s need for protection was outweighed by the company’s need for evidence. The paper appealed, citing concerns that news gathering would be hampered by repeated demands for unpublished data. In June, 1988, a state Court of Appeal in Fresno reversed the order, holding that the shield law provided “absolute protection” to journalists who are not themselves parties in a civil suit.
In Thursday’s decision, the high court upheld the appellate court and reaffirmed the shield law’s guarantees. The court did note that other state laws could allow a reporter to be fined $500 and held liable for damages in some instances for refusing to turn over unpublished material to civil litigants.
But as a practical matter, such monetary sanctions are not worth the cost to the litigants who seek them and thus are “virtually ineffectual,” Eagleson wrote. “The simple economics of modern litigation essentially preclude such an action.”
In another ruling, the high court upheld the conviction and death sentence of Ronald Lee Sanders for the 1981 bludgeon murder of Janice Allen of Bakersfield. Sanders, now 38, was accused of killing the woman to prevent her from testifying against him in a previous attempted robbery.
In a 5-2 decision, the court rejected Sanders’ claim that he was entitled to a retrial because Latinos were systematically under-represented in the pool of prospective jurors. Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard both dissented.
