Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433

Background

Non-party journalist Sharon Churcher, a New York–based reporter, was served with a subpoena by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to testify and produce documents about communications with plaintiff Virginia Giuffre and others.
Churcher reported on Giuffre/Roberts and related Epstein matters in multiple published articles (2007, 2011, 2015) and used both on-the-record and confidential sources.
The subpoena sought broad categories of communications and documents (communications with Giuffre, her agents, law enforcement, payments, contracts).
Churcher moved to quash under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and invoked the New York Reporters Shield Law (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-h), which protects confidential sources absolutely and nonconfidential newsgathering materials qualifiedly.
Maxwell argued the reporter privilege did not apply (claiming Churcher was not acting as a reporter for some communications) and that she had overcome the qualified privilege by showing the materials were highly material, critical, and unobtainable elsewhere.
The Court applied New York law (state-law privilege governs evidence because the underlying claims are state law in federal court) and quashed the subpoena, finding the Shield Law applied and Maxwell failed to overcome it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Giuffre)	Defendant's Argument (Maxwell)	Held
Whether the New York reporters' privilege (Shield Law) protects Churcher from the subpoena	Churcher (non-party) is a New York journalist who gathered information to publish; Shield Law applies to confidential and nonconfidential newsgathering materials	Maxwell: some communications were not in a newsgathering capacity so Shield Law does not apply	Court: Shield Law applies; Churcher was acting as a journalist and the primary relationship was newsgathering
Whether confidential-source information must be disclosed	Confidential information is absolutely privileged	Maxwell asserted some information from Giuffre/others was not confidential and thus not absolutely protected	Court: any information obtained under promises of confidentiality is absolutely protected and cannot be compelled
Whether the qualified privilege for nonconfidential newsgathering materials was overcome	Churcher: nonconfidential materials are protected unless opposing party makes a "clear and specific showing" of high materiality, critical necessity, and no alternative source	Maxwell: materials are highly material to showing Giuffre altered her story; critical to Maxwell's truth/credibility defense; not obtainable elsewhere	Court: Maxwell failed to make the required specific showing and did not exhaust alternative sources; privilege not overcome
Whether Churcher must be conscripted as an "investigative arm" due to other discovery limitations	Churcher argued parties must exhaust other sources before invading press materials; press independence and editorial process are protected	Maxwell argued other sources are insufficient and sought Churcher as necessary	Court: Maxwell has not shown last-resort status; other avenues remain; cannot conscript Churcher

Key Cases Cited

In re Application to Quash Subpoena to Nat. Broad. Co., Inc., 79 F.3d 346 (2d Cir.) (applied New York Shield Law to subpoena served on New York-based broadcaster)
Baker v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 669 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirmed shield law protection for unpublished newsgathering details and absolute privilege for confidential sources)
Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) (described broader harms from permitting unrestricted subpoenas of press materials)
von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1987) (analyzed when reporter's privilege applies based on intent to disseminate at inception)
Holmes v. Winter, 22 N.Y.3d 300 (N.Y. 2013) (affirmed strong protection for newsgathering and confidential sources under New York law)