Court Opinion

ID: 9540028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:21.022437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:32.790650
License: Public Domain

ROVIRA, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority for the reason that the trial judge recognized the First Amendment issues inherent in the proceeding and was sensitive to the need for a balancing of the rights of the plaintiff and of the Star-Journal.
In addition to the findings set out in the majority opinion, the trial judge also stated:
“The Court, in employing a balancing test determines that the need to have the information from Mr. Gagnon in this case far outweighs any societal interest in extending privilege. Due process of law would surely suffer in a defamation suit against a newspaper, when the reporter’s source, upon whom, as here, the reporter relies in significant degree, becomes privileged upon the decision of the reporter himself.”
In my view, the majority opinion, which only applies the test of relevancy to discovery in a media libel case, does not sufficiently take into consideration and protect First Amendment values. See Pankratz v. District Court, Colo., 609 P.2d 1101 (1980) (Rovira, J., concurring).
I am authorized to say that LOHR, J, joins in this special concurrence.