Source: https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-sections/b-editor/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:32:03+00:00

Document:
While there is no case exactly on point, an unpublished decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held that there is no First Amendment privilege for the editorial process. Amaya v. Bregman, No. 14-cv-0599 WJ/SMV, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63588, *16 (D.N.M. May 13, 2016). In Amaya, defendant reporters were accused of violating the Federal Wiretap Act after allegedly receiving, using, and further disclosing illegally intercepted emails to and from a governor’s domain. The defendants argued that their communications with each other and other journalists were privileged as evidence of their editorial process. The court found no authority to support protection of the editorial process. Further, because the plaintiffs claimed statutory and punitive damages, which required a showing that the defendants acted knowingly, the court held that the information was relevant and necessary. The court limited the privilege to the defendant reporters’ confidential sources.
Courts in the Second Circuit have extended the privilege to editors.
In Lipinski v. Skinner, 781 F. Supp. 131 (N.D.N.Y. 1991), plaintiff was arrested and forced to undergo HIV testing. Plaintiff tested positive for HIV. The Binghamton Press published an article stating that the plaintiff was the first inmate in the Broome County jail with AIDS. Plaintiff sued the police and jail officials alleging that they violated the law by forcing him to take an HIV test and failing to protect his confidentiality. The author of the article stated in a deposition that one of her editors at the paper told her to investigate reports of an inmate with AIDS and that the sheriff confirmed that the plaintiff had tested positive. The author had two editors at the paper, and she did not state which editor gave her the information. Plaintiff subpoenaed testimony from both of the author's editors to determine which editor gave the author the lead. The court held that plaintiff satisfied the Burke three-prong test to overcome the privilege and ordered that the newspaper's motion to quash the subpoenas against the editors be denied. Id. at 138-139. Plaintiff's discovery was limited to questions about who initially disclosed the information regarding plaintiffs' HIV test to the newspaper. Id. at 140.
“Editorial decisions and decisions on articles to be published (or not published)” may be subject to the reporter’s privilege. The privilege is designed to prevent the “wholesale production of press files,” and so a district court accordingly denied a motion to compel discovery of records of a magazine’s editorial meetings and those documenting the decision-making process regarding cover stories and subjects of coverage by a plaintiff alleging that she was subjected to a racially discriminatory work environment. Robertson v. People Mag., 14 CIV. 6759 (PAC), 2015 WL 9077111 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2015) (applying New York Shield Law).
Additionally, in In re Welling, 40 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), a Barron's associate editor wrote an article that led attorneys in a securities fraud cases to believe she had relevant evidence. Her motion to quash the subpoena was denied. After the trial court decision, the associate editor tried to have herself held in contempt so she could appeal the decision to not quash the subpoena. The district court did not reach the merits of the decision, finding she could not be held in contempt because the deadline for complying with the subpoena had not yet been fixed, so she had not yet disobeyed a court order. Id. at 493-94.
Courts in the Third Circuit do not appear expressly to have addressed this question, but under the three-part test it employs, there appears little doubt that traditional editors would qualify for the First Amendment-based privilege. See In re Madden, 151 F.3d at 130.
The case law does not define an “editor,” though a newspaper editor has been permitted to invoke the privilege. See Maurice v. Nat’l Labor Relations Board, 691 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that business editor of Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief from subpoena).
No reported decision of the Fifth Circuit addresses who constitutes an "editor" for purposes of asserting the qualified privilege.
Although no case decided by federal courts in the Sixth Circuit addressed the issue, where the First Amendment applies, it would likely apply to an editor.
The Ninth Circuit does not explicitly define the term “editor” when deciding whether an individual attempting to invoke the reporter’s privilege has standing. The Ninth Circuit determines standing based on the activity of the individual claiming the privilege, rather than on the professional affiliation of that person; therefore there is no need for the court to formulate a definition of such a term. Shoen I, 5 F.3d at 1293 (following the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Von Bulow).
There is no Alabama statutory or reported case law defining "editor."
Alaska appellate courts have not had occasion to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege, and the trial courts have not had occasion to address the definition of an "editor" for purposes of applying the privilege. The shield law does not define "editor."
Neither the Arizona Shield Law nor the Arizona Media Subpoena Law defines the term "editor."
No statutes or cases define "editor."
California’s shield laws explicitly protect editors, but do not define the term or limit its application. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 2(b); Cal. Evid. Code § 1070. There is no case law addressing this issue.
The Shield Law includes no specific definition of an editor; however, based on the broad language of the statute, an editor may assert the privilege. In Gordon, the court vacated a lower court order requiring the host's supervisor to reveal confidential sources. Gordon, 9 P.3d at 1122. The court stated that the supervisor, as a non-party, may rely on the protections of the privilege and that the supervisor can be compelled to testify only after the test in 13-90-119(3) is met. Id. The court held, however, that the corporate owner of the radio station could not avail itself of the privilege.
Neither the Shield Law nor the case law define "editor," but the privilege expressly applies to "any person supervising or assisting" a person "engaged in gathering, preparing or disseminating" information for the news media. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-146t(a)(2).
Explicitly covered. 10 Del. C. § 4320 (4)(b). The statute explicitly covers an "agent, assistant, employee, or supervisor of an individual who qualifies as a reporter." Id.
The District’s shield law does not define an “editor.” However, the statute applies to “any person who is or has been employed by the news media in a news gathering or news disseminating capacity.” D.C. Code § 16-4702.
An editor is protected by Florida’s statutory privilege if he or she is regularly engaged in editing news for gain or livelihood and obtained the information at issue while working as an employee of or contractor for a newspaper, news journal, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television station, network, or news magazine. § 90.5015(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).
The privilege applies to a full or part time editor as well as any person "engaged in the gathering or dissemination of news." O.C.G.A. § 24-5-508.
Although the Statute does not explicitly define “editor,” an “editor” appears to be covered in the definition of “reporter” in Section 8-902(a) of the Statute because a reporter is defined as “any person . . . writing or editing news for publication . . .” 735 ILCS 5/8-902(a)(emphasis added).
No definition of "editor" is provided by case law and no case addresses the issue. It is clear after Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier that both an editor and managing editor qualified for the privilege because they engaged in the news gathering process. 646 N.W.2d at 101.
Neither the shield statute nor Kentucky case law defines an "editor." The statute, KRS 421.100, applies to any persons engaged or employed by or connected with a newspaper, television or radio broadcasting station.
Louisiana courts have broadly interpreted those who are included under the rubric of the state's statutory reporter's privilege. Since a newspaper is "engaged in the business of collecting, writing and editing news for public dissemination" and the owner-publisher is engaged in the same functions, the owner-publisher, or anyone in a similar position, is considered a reporter within the meaning of the statute. Becnel, 420 So.2d at 1175; see also La. R.S. 45:1451.
Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-112(b) -- Persons affected are described as those employed by the news media in a news gathering or news disseminating capacity; independent contractors of the news media acting within the scope of a contract in any news gathering or news disseminating capacity; and enrolled post-secondary students engaged in any news gathering or news disseminating capacity recognized by the institution as a scholastic activity or in connection with a school-related activity.
There is no statutory or case law definition of "editor."
Courts have not defined "editor," for purposes of the privilege.
No specific Minnesota cases dealing with editors.
Neither the opinions from the federal district courts of Mississippi nor the selected trial court orders discuss the application of the qualified privilege to editors or the definition of an "editor."
The definition that covers reporters is the same one that covers editors.
The statute does not define editor. It protects any person “engaged in procuring, gathering, writing, editing or disseminating news or other information to the public.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-146.
There is no the case brought by an editor. That said, the Court’s statement in Mortgage Specialists, Inc. set forth in part IV.A above is broad enough to include editors.
Because the statute states that the privilege extends to any "person engaged on, engaged in, or connected with, or employed by news media, " it includes editors. See Gastman v. North Jersey Newspapers, 254 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 1992).
Persons engaged in editing the news are protected. See supra pt. IV(A)(1)(a).
Editors fall within the definition of "journalist" under the law, and may also claim a "journalist's" privilege. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.11(a)(1).
The North Dakota statute does not define “editor,” although the language of the statute implicitly includes employers of the newsgatherer.
ORS 44.520 protects any person "connected with, employed by, or engaged in any medium of communication to the public."
The Pennsylvania Shield Law and First Amendment reporter’s privilege apply to editors. The Shield Law protects anyone “engaged on, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5942(a). In In re Taylor, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Shield Law protected the president and general manager of a newspaper and the editor of another newspaper, all of whom were subpoenaed by an investigating grand jury. See In re Taylor, 193 A.2d 181, 182, 186 (Pa. 1963).
There is no definition of editor. If the editor is engaged in the gathering and dissemination of news for the public, the qualified privilege is available.
The Tennessee shield law applies to any "person engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast connected with or employed by the news media or press, or who is independently engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast." Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-208(a). The statute does not mention the term "editor," but the statute is clearly meant to cover a broad range of people working in journalism.
The Texas shield law does not have a specific definition for editor, but editor likely falls within the definition for journalist.
An “editor” falls within the definition of a “news reporter” under Rule 509(a)(1). Utah R. Evid. 509(a).
Editors are included under the Vermont’s reporter’s privilege. See 12 V.S.A. § 1615(a).
An “editor” is covered by the Reporters’ Privilege statute, W.Va. Code § 57-3-10 and is entitled to the protections of the privilege in the confidential source context. In regard to news gathering materials unrelated to a confidential source, the Hudok court cited to the Von Bulow case for its elaboration on the criteria used to determine whether one is a member of the class entitled to claim the reporter's privilege. See “Who is covered” above. There is no law or statute that formally defines who qualifies as an "editor," but it would seem logical that a news editor would be covered.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 1070
 § 52
 § 4320
 § 16
 § 90
 § 24
 § 9
 § 20
 v. 
 § 8
 § 5942
 § 24
 § 1615
 § 57