In Re Subpoena to Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., 2:25-mc-00028

Eric Lyle Williams, a federal habeas petitioner, served a subpoena on Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. ("Warner") seeking unaired interview footage and transcripts from an episode of Crime Watch Daily related to his case.
The subpoena originated from a Texas federal court’s finding of "good cause" for discovery, but is being enforced in the Central District of California, where Warner is located.
Warner objected to the subpoena, citing the journalist's qualified First Amendment privilege recognized by the Ninth Circuit.
Williams filed a motion to compel Warner’s compliance; Warner argued the "exhaustion" requirement for overcoming the privilege had not been met.
The court is applying Ninth Circuit law, particularly from Shoen v. Shoen, rather than the lower "good cause" standard of the Texas court, as the privilege standard is higher and not preempted by habeas discovery rules.
The primary factual context is post-conviction: Williams has already been convicted and sentenced to death; this is a collateral habeas matter and not a live criminal prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of journalist’s privilege	Should apply less stringently in habeas/death penalty context	Applies equally in habeas; this is a civil (not criminal) matter	Privilege applies; no heightened standard for habeas cases
Exhaustion requirement before compelling journalist	Materials unattainable elsewhere; interviews uniquely valuable	Williams failed to exhaust reasonable alternatives (e.g., re-examining witnesses)	Williams has not exhausted alternatives; motion denied
Relevance and necessity for requested materials	Material directly relevant to issues in his habeas petition	No showing witnesses' statements differ from past testimony	Did not reach these issues (premature until exhaustion met)
Crime Watch Daily as journalism for privilege	Argued show is "entertainment," not "news"	Asserted show is journalistic for privilege purposes	Privilege applies; CWD qualifies as journalism

Farr v. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1975) (establishes broad First Amendment reporter's privilege covering journalists in both civil and criminal proceedings)
Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993) (sets standard for overcoming journalist’s privilege, requiring exhaustion of alternatives)
Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1995) (refines standard: exhaustion, non-cumulativeness, and clear relevance required to pierce privilege)