Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc.
Citations: 739 So. 2d 142; 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2438; 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9524; 1999 WL 548973Docket: 99-878
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 16, 1999; Florida; State Appellate Court
Todd Ulrich, a television news reporter, petitioned for certiorari review after his motion to quash a subpoena from Coast Dental Services, Inc. was denied. Coast Dental sought to compel Ulrich to reveal the identities of former employees who provided him information for a newscast related to the company, following its lawsuit against those employees for breach of confidentiality agreements. Florida Statute § 90.5015 establishes a qualified privilege for professional journalists, allowing them to withhold the identity of their sources unless a party can clearly demonstrate the relevance of the information, the unavailability of alternative sources, and a compelling interest in requiring disclosure. The trial court found that Ulrich's information fell under this privilege but ruled he had waived it by disclosing the information to others. Ulrich contended that the privilege, which covers both confidential and non-confidential information, was not waived by such disclosures, unlike other privileges based on confidential relationships. The case raises the question of whether a journalist’s privilege is waived by prior disclosure, a matter that appears to be unaddressed in Florida law. It also references the broader context of journalist privilege evolution, including federal precedents. Monk's article examines state 'shield statutes' that establish journalist privileges on a state level, highlighting the difference between the confidentiality needed in traditional privilege relationships and the protections afforded to information gathered by journalists. Traditional privileges, such as those between spouses or doctors and patients, are based on privacy concerns, while the journalist's privilege stems from constitutional origins and serves a public purpose by enabling journalists to obtain information from sources who might otherwise remain anonymous. Unlike most privileges that rely on confidentiality agreements, a reporter's privilege typically does not require such an agreement, meaning that sharing information with a third party does not constitute a waiver of that privilege. This is illustrated in the case of Saxton v. Arkansas Gazette Co., where a reporter's disclosure of her confidential source's identity to her superior and a deputy prosecutor was deemed not to waive her privilege. Some states have codified this principle, agreeing with Monk that it aligns with the rationale for journalist protection. Consequently, Ulrich's qualified journalist privilege was upheld despite his pre-publication disclosures. The court granted the petition, quashed the previous order denying Ulrich's motion to quash his subpoena, and remanded the case, with all judges concurring in the decision.