Reporter covered by qualified privilege; subpoena quashed

A reporter may assert the qualified reporter privilege in response to a subpoena to compel her testimony in this defamation case. Her motion to quash the subpoena is granted.

The reporter has obtained confidential and nonconfidential information during her investigation of “Plaintiff’s interactions with their subcontractors.” To determine whether the qualified privilege can be asserted, a court must evaluate “(1) whether the information sought is relevant, (2) whether the information can be obtained by alternative means, and (3) whether there is compelling interest in the information.”

Plaintiff has not filed a brief opposing the motion to quash but argues the reporter should be called as a witness because she allegedly received a voice mail from one of the defendants. But even assuming the voicemail is relevant as to the publication element of the defamation claim, plaintiff has not satisfied the other two prongs of the qualified privilege test.

The information sought can be obtained by other means, namely, testimony from the defendant, and publication can be established by “other mechanisms.”

Therefore, the motion to quash is granted.

Marathon Resource Management Group v. Fresh Cuts Lawn Care, et al. Case No. CL-19-5973. Feb. 24, 2020; Richmond Cir. Ct. Order (Taylor). VLW 020-8-013, 2 pp.