Opinion ID: 3062233
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of Dateline’s Unedited Film

Text: We now come to the stay of all discovery while Dateline’s motions to dismiss were pending (despite BCA’s objections and motion to compel). Our decision reinstating the complaint would normally resolve such a discovery dispute. However, this case is anything but normal. Dateline claims it need not disclose its news material merely because BCA plausibly alleged a defamation claim. Rather it argues, under Colorado’s newsperson’s privilege, Colo. Rev. Stat. - 18 - § 13-90-119(3)(c),9 as interpreted in Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106, 1109 (Colo. 2000), BCA’s complaint must also sufficiently plead facts showing “probable falsity” before any disclosure is required.10 (Appellant’s App’x, Vol. III at 981.) Gordon’s “probable falsity” requirement cannot apply here. In Gordon, the Colorado Supreme Court considered the application of the statutory newsperson’s privilege in a defamation case. Gordon, a police officer, sued several parties after a local radio talk show host, Peter Boyles, made allegedly defamatory comments about Gordon’s participation in the stabbing of a fellow officer. The issue was whether Boyles was required to disclose the identities of his confidential sources or whether this information was privileged under § 13-90-119. The court identified three of the requirements in § 13-90-119 necessary to defeat the privilege: (1) “the news information [must be] directly relevant to a substantial issue involved in the proceeding”; (2) “the news information cannot be obtained by any other 9 § 13-90-119 is reproduced in Appendix A. The statute establishes a newsperson’s privilege. Generally it prevents a newsperson from being required to disclose information or sources of information. § 13-90-119(3) establishes the exceptions to the general rule. 10 The district court also denied discovery based on the federal common law news privilege adopted in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433 (10th Cir. 1977). Whether news information will be protected depends on a weighing of several factors: (1) “[w]hether the party seeking information has independently attempted to obtain the information elsewhere and has been unsuccessful”; (2) “[w]hether the information goes to the heart of the matter”; (3) “[w]hether the information is of certain relevance”; and (4) “[t]he type of controversy.” Id. at 438. Dateline does not rely on the federal privilege except to the extent it also contains an inquiry into the availability of the evidence from another source. - 19 - reasonable means”; and (3) “a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the newsperson outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States constitution of such newsperson . . . and of the general public in receiving news information.” 9 P.3d at 1118. It concluded Gordon met the first requirement because “the identities of [Boyle’s confidential sources] and what they said reflect[ed] directly on the declarant’s state of mind with respect to the truth or falsity about the information he broadcast.” Id. The second requirement, whether the material is unavailable, must be considered from the point of the information’s true relevance to the issue of malice. Id. at 1119. When evidence of malice may be available other than through the confidential source, the identity of the source should be protected. Id. These first two requirements are easily resolved here. The parties do not dispute the unedited footage taken during the October 2007 seminar is directly relevant to the ultimate issue in this lawsuit—whether Dateline maliciously or recklessly mischaracterized the gist of that seminar. And, contrary to Dateline’s argument, BCA’s video of the March seminar is not an alternative means of acquiring the information necessary to proceed. While the tape of the earlier seminar may have been sufficient to support BCA’s complaint, this does not mean it will be sufficient to carry the heavy burden of proof required at trial. According to BCA, “the March video includes only two statements similar to two of the six snippets [used in the Dateline program], one addressing liquidity options in annuities and another addressing ‘peace of mind.’ The - 20 - other four October snippets have no counterparts in the March video.” (Appellant’s Br. at 41.) Therefore, it would be difficult, at best, to compare the totality of the seminar and the gist of Dateline’s program without the original video. And it is uncontested the “news information” upon which the complaint is based is solely in Dateline’s possession. Thus, disclosure of the unedited Dateline film rests on the third statutory requirement, the balance between the interests of the plaintiff, the newsperson, and the public. It would appear BCA would prevail on this factor as well under Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979). Herbert involved a defamation suit brought by a retired Army officer against Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) and its reporters. He claimed CBS aired a program that falsely portrayed him “as a liar and a person who had made war-crimes charges to explain his relief from command.” Id. at 156. The Supreme Court rejected CBS’s request for “an absolute privilege to the editorial process of a media defendant in a libel case,” concluding it “is not required, authorized, or presaged by [the Court’s] prior cases, and would substantially enhance the burden of proving actual malice, contrary to the expectations of New York Times . . . and similar cases.” Id. at 169. The Court then balanced the “important interests” of an individual’s interest in his reputation against the “chilling effect” which may result from the disclosure of the editorial process. Id. at 171. After determining the potential chilling effect on the press did not outweigh the individual’s interest under the facts of the case, the Court said: This is not to say that the editorial discussions or exchanges have no constitutional protection from casual inquiry. There is no law that subjects the editorial process to private or official examination merely to satisfy curiosity or to serve some general end such as the public interest; and if - 21 - there were, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny as the First Amendment is presently construed. No such problem exists here, however, where there is a specific claim of injury11 arising from a publication that is alleged to have been knowingly or recklessly false. Id. at 174. Although BCA has met the three requirements found in the Colorado statute, Gordon added an additional, non-statutory, requirement in its analysis. The Colorado Supreme Court determined that, when considering a request for the identity of a confidential source or for confidential information, “probable falsity” is required to defeat the statutory privilege. It said: In sum, the General Assembly adopted section 13-90-119 in order to protect the First Amendment interests of newspersons who rely on confidential sources of information to gather and report news about public affairs. However, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. A court must carefully weigh each of the three factors listed in section 13-90-119(3)(a)- (c) before compelling disclosure. As part of the balancing test required under section 13-90-119(3)(c) to weigh the First Amendment interests of a newsperson defendant in resisting compelled disclosure of confidential sources and the plaintiff’s interest in the information, the trial court must make a preliminary determination about the probable falsity of the defendant’s statements. While in some instances disclosure may be the best option, we emphasize that when deciding whether to compel a newsperson to disclose confidential information, a trial court should compel disclosure only as a last resort when necessary to promote the effective administration of justice. 9 P.3d at 1121 (emphasis added). Based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Dateline claims its news information is not subject to disclosure until BCA has shown 11 In a footnote, the Court noted a “prima facie showing [of a specific claim of injury] could be satisfied by an affidavit or a simple verification of the pleadings.” Herbert, 441 U.S. at 174 n.23. - 22 - “probable falsity.” But it ignores the purpose announced in Gordon’s holding: protection of confidential information and sources. Indeed, Gordon expressed concern about “the ability of the press to gather information by promising to keep the identities of their sources confidential” if it was required to identify its sources. Id. at 1116. But this is not a case involving confidential sources or confidential information. In essence, Dateline wants to pitch the baby out with the bath water. It appears the identity of those who filmed the seminar is well known to the parties, but if undisclosed others were involved, BCA is not seeking to identify them. As for the editorial process, BCA is not seeking any information about how or why Dateline decided what portions of the surreptitiously filmed October seminar it would use and what it would not. BCA is only asking for a copy of the unedited film and it would seem to be the only entity with a colorable claim to confidentiality. The application of Gordon’s “probable falsity” test in this situation strains credulity. Had Boyles’s confidential source in Gordon come forward and said “I did not tell Boyles what he said on the radio,” surely the test would be satisfied. Clark, the source of the information, says Dateline’s statements were false. Why is that not sufficient? What’s more, as Gordon recognized, “[w]hen the journalist is a party, and successful assertion of the privilege will effectively shield him from liability, the equities weigh somewhat more heavily in favor of disclosure.” Id. at 1119 (quoting Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705, 714 (D.C.Cir.1981)) (quotation marks omitted). Gordon’s “probable falsity” inquiry has no place in this analysis. - 23 - Without the probable falsity crutch, the equitable balance between “important interests” and “chilling effect” tip dramatically in favor of BCA. The object of discovery—the original footage—is the best and perhaps only evidence from which a fact-finder can determine whether Dateline’s portrayal of the substance of what occurred at Annuity University cast Clark’s teachings in such a way as to leave a false impression of them. BCA’s film from the March seminar will not do. It is not the seminar witnessed by the Dateline producers, nor is it the one on which the allegedly false statements in the program were based. BCA would be greatly prejudiced in its ability to prove the defamation claim without access to the unedited film. Dateline’s First Amendment interests do not involve the disclosure of confidential information or confidential sources. The fact-finder is entitled to the best evidence available, particularly in a case like this, which asks whether the media’s zeal to report and perhaps sensationalize should be tempered by its responsibility not to defame. For all of those reasons, BCA’s factual allegations are sufficient to warrant discovery of the unedited film. The Colorado statue is a shield, not a sword.