Narrative Opinion Summary
In the shareholder class-action lawsuit In Re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation, Amgen Inc. issued a subpoena to journalist Paul B. Goldberg to testify regarding his article on the DAHANCA 10 study, which highlighted safety concerns with Amgen's drug Aranesp. Goldberg moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the First Amendment reporter’s privilege. The court granted the motion, quashing the subpoena while denying Goldberg's request for attorney’s fees. The court applied the journalist’s privilege to both confidential and non-confidential information, requiring Amgen to demonstrate the necessity of the information and its diligence in pursuing alternative sources. Amgen argued that Goldberg’s testimony was crucial for its defense, but the court found that Amgen had not exhausted other avenues of obtaining the information, such as deposing relevant analysts or doctors involved in the DAHANCA 10 study. The decision highlighted the court’s reliance on balancing the civil litigant's need for information against the public interest in protecting journalistic sources. Amgen’s failure to demonstrate sufficient efforts to explore alternative sources led to the denial of its request to compel Goldberg's testimony, upholding the journalist's privilege.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney’s Fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the journalist's request for attorney's fees, finding no evidence of bad faith by Amgen in its subpoena efforts.
Reasoning: The court grants Goldberg’s motion to quash, denying his request for attorney’s fees under Rule 45(d)(1).
Balancing Test for Journalist’s Privilegesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the necessity of the information and the diligence of alternative efforts by Amgen to determine whether the journalist's privilege could be overcome in this case.
Reasoning: The court evaluates Amgen's arguments against the two Zerilli factors: the necessity of the information and Amgen's diligence in pursuing alternative sources.
First Amendment Reporter’s Privilegesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the First Amendment reporter's privilege to quash a subpoena issued to a journalist, protecting both confidential and non-confidential information from compelled disclosure.
Reasoning: The legal standard acknowledges that journalists possess a qualified privilege against compelled disclosure of First Amendment-related activities, with courts balancing civil litigants' interests against the necessity of protecting the press.
Requirement of Exhausting Alternative Sourcessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found Amgen failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to obtain information from alternative sources before compelling journalist testimony.
Reasoning: Amgen's counsel admitted there were 25 or 26 analysts covering the company in 2007 but failed to depose any prior to subpoenaing Goldberg, which does not satisfy the requirement to exhaust alternatives sufficient to override the reporter’s privilege.