"The Central Park Five," a documentary film created by Florentine Films, the production company run by Ken Burns, his daughter and son-in-law, reports the experiences of five men who were wrongfully convicted in participating in the April 1989 assault and rape of a jogger in Central Park. The men are currently in the midst of litigation against the city for damages resulting from those convictions.
Book author and blogger Robert David Johnson is appealing a U.S. Magistrate Judge's opinion denying his request to quash a subpoena from Duke University seeking confidential, non-published communications between himself and several former Duke lacrosse players and their attorneys. Johnson began writing a blog concerning the fallout from a spring 2006 incident in which a stripper hired to perform at an off-campus house party accused several of the players of rape. Duke is facing civil suits from the former players.
The Center for International Environmental Law brought suit under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") seeking the disclosure of government records relating to a failed round of trade negotiations. The government withheld a document under FOIA's Exemption 1, which permits federal agencies to withhold information that has been properly classified. The trial court ordered the release of the document, holding that the government had failed to show that releasing the document would cause harm to national security or foreign policy interests. The government appealed to the U.S.
Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group, LLC sued blogger Crystal Cox, claiming that Cox libeled them through a series of postings on her Internet blog. The trial court jury ruled in favor of Padrick and Obsidian and returned a $2.5 million verdict in their favor. Cox moved for a new trial, which was denied. The decision in the trial court below turned on whether she was a journalist and whether her speech involved a matter of public concern – both of which affects the standard of liability under Oregon law.
William Hoeper, a former pilot for Air Wisconsin Airlines, sued his former employer for defamation after employees from the regional airline notified Transportation Security Administration officials of their concerns about Mr. Hoeper's "mental stability" following a failed proficiency flight training test.
A federal trial court judge in California ordered that many of the documents in the patent litigation between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics should be publicly released, and the two technology companies have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, which oversees patent appeals.
A coalition of attorneys, journalists and labor, legal, media and human rights organizations challenged amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allow federal officials to monitor international electronic communications even if one party is in the United States. The federal trial court in New York found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient harm such that they have standing to challenge the amendments. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York (2nd Cir.) reversed that ruling, and the U.S.
The Center for Constitutional Rights and a number of other organizations moved to intervene in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning for access to documents filed in connection with the proceeding. The trial court denied the request, a decision that was affirmed by the military's intermediate appellate court. CCR appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the military's highest appellate court. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 30 news media organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of CCR's position.
In United States v. Roe, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York (2nd Cir.) found last year that a court order prohibiting a lawyer from disseminating sealed court records involved in the prosecution of John Doe, an unnamed businessman turned government cooperator, did not violate the attorney's First Amendment rights.
The Reporters Committee strongly supports rules adopted by the Utah Judicial Council that would allow electronic media coverage and the use of portable electronic devices in criminal and civil trial court proceedings.
While recognizing that certain interests may justify a judicial decision to refuse to release certain information prior to and during a trial, the Reporters Committee amicus brief argued that an order that prohibits disclosure of such information indefinitely and presumably well beyond a trial has ended and these interests are no longer an issue is unconstitutionally overbroad.
The Reporters Committee argues in its amicus brief that Washington's anti-SLAPP statute does not inhibit any First Amendment rights of U.S. Mission because its suit should be considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation, and therefore, without merit.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter to Department of Justice officials urging them to immediately abandon an apparent internal policy of ordering journalists not to record or quote its attorneys’ statements at public meetings.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other media organizations writes to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts asking for the Court to allow audio and video recording of the announcement of its decision in the three cases involving proposed federal health-care legislation.