Republic Of Kazakhstan v. Llc Media-consult
192 Wash. App. 773
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The Republic of Kazakhstan sued 100 unnamed defendants in California, alleging hackers stole and published privileged government emails; Kazakhstan sought domain registrant and IP/MAC data for the Respublika website via a subpoena served on eNom, a Washington-based domain registrar.
- LLC Media-Consult (LMC) operates Respublika and uses eNom’s privacy service; LMC moved to quash the subpoena, citing Washington’s news media shield law and risks to journalists and registrants.
- LMC submitted evidence of threats, harassment, and government pressure on Respublika and its staff; Kazakhstan disputed those claims and argued the records were necessary to identify the hackers.
- The King County Superior Court limited the subpoena (struck billing info and ordered produced records to be attorneys’ eyes only) but denied the motion to quash; LMC appealed and obtained an emergency stay.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the scope of RCW 5.68.010 (Washington’s news media shield law) and held the statute protects the registrant and IP/MAC information sought when subpoenaed from a nonnews-media vendor to identify a source.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 5.68.010 protects subpoenaed registrant/IP data from a nonnews vendor when sought to identify a source | Kazakhstan: subpoena seeks evidence of hacking, not protected reporter-source communications; statute’s "source" is narrow and requires direct supplier of materials to journalist | LMC: statute covers records from nonnews parties that would identify a source or tend to identify a source; subpoena aims to identify the hackers/sources and thus is protected | The court held RCW 5.68.010(3) applies; registrant and IP/MAC data sought to identify a source are protected and the trial court abused its discretion denying the motion to quash |
Key Cases Cited
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972) (leaves scope of reporter’s privilege to the states)
- Senear v. Daily Journal-American, 97 Wn.2d 148 (Wash. 1982) (recognized qualified reporter privilege in civil cases)
- State v. Rinaldo, 102 Wn.2d 749 (Wash. 1984) (extended qualified privilege to criminal cases)
- Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wn.2d 696 (Wash. 2001) (burden of proving a privilege rests with the party asserting it)
- Eugster v. City of Spokane, 121 Wn. App. 799 (Wash. Ct. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for subpoena-quash review)
- T.S. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 157 Wn.2d 416 (Wash. 2006) (review standard for discovery orders)
- State v. Chester, 133 Wn.2d 15 (Wash. 1997) (statutory construction principles)