E. Confidential and/or non-confidential information

Confidential information, generally, is any information obtained by a news gatherer under a promise of confidentiality. Non-confidential information, conversely, is any information obtained other than through a promise of confidentiality. The Statute does not differentiate between confidential and non-confidential information. The Statute extends to all sources whether or not they are considered confidential. People v. Palacio, 240 Ill. App.3d 1078, 1092, 607 N.E.2d 135, 138 (1993). "[T]he definition of 'source' makes no distinction between confidential and nonconfidential 'person or means from or through which the news or information was obtained.'" People ex rel. Scott v. Silverstein, 89 Ill. App. 3d at 1043, 412 N.E.2d at 695; see also People v. Slover, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 624, 753 N.E.2d at 558 (subpoenaed photographs were privileged because section 8-901 of the Statute protects even non-confidential sources); United States v. Lopez, 14 Media L. Rep. 2204 (N.D. Ill. 1987). (rejecting that defendant's contention that the reporter's qualified privilege protects only confidential sources); McCabe v. Greager, 27 Media L. Rep, 1702, 1703 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 1999) (finding that a videotape [outtake] was a "source" as defined by 735 ILCS 5/8-902(c), and cloaking it with the statutory privilege regardless of whether it was confidential). Cf. Gulliver's Periodicals. Ltd. v. Chas. Levy Cir. Co., 455 F. Supp. 1197 (N.D. Ill. 1978) (reporters are protected under a First Amendment balancing test from testifying as to either confidential or non-confidential source information); but see Warnell v. Ford Motor Co., 183 F.R.D. 624, 625-27 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (while citing 735 ILCS 5/8-901 in passing, court apparently applied federal constitutional reporter's privilege and not the Illinois statute, ordering NBC to produce videotape of "sex party," portions of which were aired on its Dateline show, finding that the videotape was not confidential, would not reveal the source's identity, and was relevant to the plaintiff's sexual harassment claims); McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 533 (7th Cir. 2003) (in federal question case, court expressly declined to address Illinois reporter's privilege statute, and cast doubt on existence of federal privilege, finding it "difficult to see what possible bearing the First Amendment could have on the question of compelled disclosure"); United States v. Jennings, No. 97 CR 765, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9534 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 1999) (holding that in federal criminal cases "the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act provides no guidance" and "the First Amendment does not protect journalists from disclosure of non-confidential, relevant information that is sought in good faith").