Court: Online journalists can be required to reveal their sources

In a significant development in the now famous legal proceedins between Apple and enthusiast websites, the Santa Clara Superior Court today decided that an online journalist’s Internet service provider (ISP) can be required to reveal the identities of a reporter’s confidential sources. The court rejected a request for an order to protect the confidentiality of the sources and other unpublished information.

"We’re disappointed that the trial court ignored the Supreme Court’s requirement that seeking a journalist’s confidential sources be a ’last resort’ in civil discovery," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Instead, the court asserts a wholesale exception to the journalist’s privilege when the information is alleged to be a trade secret." "This is a broad-brush ruling that threatens journalists of all stripes," added EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.

The (EFF), along with co-counsel Thomas Moore III and Richard Wiebe, is representing the journalist, and will be asking the California Appellate Court to intervene.

This landmark case was the first in which a court heard arguments that online reporters’ confidential sources and unpublished materials are protected by both the reporter’s shield in the California constitution and the reporter’s privilege under the federal First Amendment. But the court did not restrict its ruling to online journalists, instead deciding that all journalists could be required to reveal confidential sources when a claim of trade secret is raised.

Apple is suing several unnamed individuals, called "Does," who allegedly leaked information about an upcoming product code-named "Asteroid." Apple has subpoenaed Nfox, the ISP for PowerPage.com publisher Jason O’Grady, demanding that the ISP turn over the communications and unpublished materials O’Grady obtained while he was gathering information for his articles about "Asteroid." Apple has also been granted permission to issue subpoenas directly to EFF clients PowerPage and AppleInsider for similar information, but these have not yet been issued and were not ruled on today.

The ruling can be found here .