Case Title: Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie

Citation: 720 So. 2d 230

Docket Number: 92321

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
720 So. 2d 230 (1998)
MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, etc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
Susanne Y. FRANGIE, et al., Respondents.
No. 92321.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 22, 1998.
*231 George D. Gabel, Jr. and Brooks C. Rathet of Holland & Knight LLP, Jacksonville, for Petitioners.
J. Richard Moore, Jr. of Moore, Smith & Moore, Jacksonville, Ronald E. Reed and Laurence C. Huttman of Bullock, Childs, Pendley, Reed, Herzfeld & Rubin, Jacksonville, Thomas M. Beverly, Jacksonville, and Harvey L. Jay, III, Jacksonville, for Respondents.
Charles A. Carlson of Barnett, Bolt, Kirkwood & Long, Tampa, for Fernandina Beach News-Leader, Inc.; Florida Society of Newspaper Editors; Gainesville Sun Publishing Company; Knight-Ridder, Inc., Publisher of The Miami Herald; Lake City Reporter, Inc.; Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation; Ocala Star-Banner Corporation; Palatka Daily News, Inc., Publisher of the Daily News and the Marco Island Eagle; Sarasota Herald-Tribune Co.; Sebring News-Sun, Inc.; Tampa Television, Inc., d/b/a WFLA-TV Channel 8; and the Tribune Company, Publishers of The Tampa Tribune, Amici Curiae.
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie, 704 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which the district court affirmed the trial court's order denying Morris Communications Corporation's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on its reporter in a civil proceeding. In affirming the trial court's order, the district court concluded, in accordance with the rationale of Davis v. State, 692 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), quashed, 720 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1998), that Florida law did not recognize a privilege for nonconfidential sources of a reporter. However, because Davis involved the reporter's privilege in the context of a criminal proceeding and because the instant case involved the privilege in the context of a civil proceeding, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Morris, 704 So. 2d  at 1143. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In State v. Davis, 720 So. 2d 220, 226 (Fla. 1998), we quashed the district court's opinion in Davis, holding as follows:
Consistent with our opinion in Davis, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and we clarify that a qualified reporter's privilege applies in both civil and criminal *232 proceedings. Accordingly, we quash the district court's decision in the instant case and remand this cause for reconsideration of the motion to quash in light of our decision in Davis.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., concurs in result only.