Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180326_0000420.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:26:30+00:00

Document:
The motion to quash having been fully briefed and argued is now ripe to be decided by the court.
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Federal Rule of Evidence 45(d)(3) provides that a court “must quash or modify a subpoena that…requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applied.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)….The burden of the party opposing the subpoena “is particularly heavy to support a motion to quash as contrasted to some more limited protection such as a protective order.” In re Domestic Drywall, 300 F.R.D. 234 at 239 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Green, 314 F.R.D. at 169-70.
The strong public policy which supports the unfettered communication to the public of information, comment and opinion and the Constitutional dimension of that policy, expressly recognized in Branzburg v. Hayes, lead us to conclude that journalists have a federal common law privilege, albeit qualified, to refuse to divulge their sources. Such a privilege has also been recognized by many other courts which have considered this question following the decision in Branzburg v. Hayes. See, e. g., Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436 (10th Cir. 1977); Baker v. F & F Investment, supra; Gulliver's Periodicals, Ltd. v. Charles Levy Circulating Co., 455 F.Supp. 1197, 1203 (N.D.Ill.1978); Zerilli v. Bell, supra; Altemose Construction Co. v. Building & Construction Trades Council, 443 F.Supp. 489, 491 (E.D.Pa.1977); Gilbert v. Allied Chemical Corp., 411 F.Supp. 505, 508 (E.D.Va.1976).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.