Opinion ID: 2013964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Reporter's Privilege

Text: In the trial court's order compelling in camera inspection, the court ruled on whether the Courier was eligible for the shield afforded by the reporter's privilege. The court stated, This record clearly supports the fact that the plaintiff is a covered party and is entitled to the shield.... The College in its appellate brief argued, it remains entirely unclear whether these editors were acting as part of the news gathering process or simply attempting to gather discovery for the pending lawsuit.... If the district court committed any error at all in resolving this issue it was assuming the Courier established the threshold showing for the privilege. The College has not at any point specifically challenged the trial court's finding that the editors and the information they hold qualify for protection under the reporter's privilege. Though the district court did not specifically rule on the issue of whether the editors were engaged in the newsgathering process, we assume the facts necessary to uphold the court's ruling. EnviroGas, L.P. v. Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency, 641 N.W.2d 776, 781 (Iowa 2002). We must determine whether there is substantial evidence upon which the trial court based its ruling. Id. In adopting the Iowa reporter's privilege, we stated that for a journalist to gain protection under this shield, a determination must be made whether that party falls within the class of persons qualifying for the privilege. Lamberto, 326 N.W.2d at 309. The party must have been engaged in the newsgathering process. Bell v. City of Des Moines, 412 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Iowa 1987). Once a journalist satisfies this preliminary showing, the information sought is presumptively privileged. Id. The burden then shifts to the party seeking the information to rebut the presumption. Id. The editors in this case are entitled to the reporter's privilege as they are journalists. See Lamberto, 326 N.W.2d at 309 (there is a presumption the privilege applies if the resisting party is a member of the protected class). The editors are employees of the Courier newspaper. One of the Courier's reporters tried to attend the Board's meetings, but was excluded after the chairman moved for a closed session. The editors were investigating the closed sessions and their research resulted in at least one published newspaper article. The editors have asserted and the evidence shows the editors were engaged in the newsgathering process when they talked to the informants. The College has done nothing more than merely suggest the editors took their hats off as reporters to act instead as litigants. In the absence of anything more than a mere assertion the editors acted in dual rolesone as litigant and the other as journalistwe cannot conclude the privilege does not apply. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the district court's conclusion the editors are entitled to invoke the reporter's privilege. The College next asserts if we conclude the privilege applies, the Courier has waived it by filing suit against the College. We now turn to this issue.