Reporter doesn't have to reveal sources, Minnesota appeals court rules
By The Associated Press
06.20.02
Editor’s note: The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to review the state Court of Appeals ruling that found newspaper reporter Wally Wakefield could not be compelled by a court order to reveal confidential sources in a defamation lawsuit. As of Sept. 26, a date for oral arguments had not been set.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A newspaper reporter cannot be compelled by a court order to reveal confidential sources in a defamation lawsuit, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.
Wally Wakefield, a reporter for the Maplewood Review, wrote a January 1997 article about the school district's decision not to retain Tartan High School football coach Richard Weinberger. In it, he used quotes from unnamed sources.
Weinberger sued the school district and four of its employees, alleging breach of contract and defamation. A lower court ruled that Wakefield had to reveal the unnamed sources of quotes that Weinberger alleged defamed him.
The newspaper and Wakefield argued that the state's Free Flow of Information Act shielded Wakefield from revealing his sources.
The appeals court’s June 18 ruling overturned the lower court decision.
"This is a very powerful affirmation (of the) principle that ... it's important to the public's interest that reporters' promises be protected," said Mark Anfinson, Wakefield's attorney.
Appeals Judge Terri Stoneburner, who decided the case along with Judges James Harten and G. Barry Anderson, ruled that Weinberger failed to prove that the statements were false or were made with actual malice.
Therefore, in a defamation action brought by a public official, a reporter cannot be required to disclose a source if the purpose of disclosure is not relevant to obtaining evidence of malice, but rather to make the reporter a witness against defendants, the court ruled.