Moore v. Domino's Pizza, L.L.C.

Citations: 199 F.R.D. 598; 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2596; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20385; 2000 WL 33270367Docket: No. 00-2577-D-V

Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee; October 13, 2000; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court denied Domino’s Pizza, Inc.'s application to strip WREG-TV Channel 3 of its protections under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 24-1-208. WREG had moved to quash Domino's subpoena for a deposition of news reporter Todd Angkasuwan, arguing that the defendant failed to satisfy the criteria for the exception outlined in Section 24-1-208(c), which grants limited disclosure rights for news media. Domino's contended that it met the three required factors under 24-1-208(c) to justify the deposition, in relation to claims of discrimination against African-American residents regarding delivery services. 

The background established that the plaintiffs alleged Domino’s refused home delivery services to them based on race, specifically on June 10, 2000, while delivering to a white resident in the same area. WREG's news report on the incident, which included commentary from Angkasuwan, highlighted these discriminatory practices. Following discussions, WREG filed a motion to quash the subpoena, leading to Domino’s application to remove WREG's protections. Ultimately, the court upheld WREG's protections under the relevant Tennessee law, denying the defendant's request.

Any individual seeking to access information or its source protected under Tenn. Code Ann. 24-1-208 must file an application to the relevant court, which can only be granted if the applicant demonstrates three factors by clear and convincing evidence: (1) probable cause that the information is relevant to a specific violation of law; (2) that the information cannot be obtained through alternative means; and (3) a compelling public interest in accessing the information. In the case at hand, the defendant established the first factor concerning the relevance of information held by a WREG employee, Angkasuwan, who witnessed the alleged incident involving the plaintiffs. However, the defendant failed to satisfy the second factor, as they did not prove that alternative methods to obtain the information were exhausted. Historical cases show that Tennessee courts have denied similar applications when alternative sources had not been sufficiently pursued. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' credibility issues prevented them from being reliable sources of information, yet they did not attempt to depose the plaintiffs, who could provide testimony under oath. This lack of effort undermines the defendant's claims and fails to meet the stringent requirements of the statute.

Defendant's claim that WREG employees, including Angkasuwan, are the only unbiased sources of information is challenged. If the June 10, 2000, news report was indeed staged, WREG would have no incentive to obscure the report's context, implying potential self-interest regarding whether the Plaintiffs ordered pizzas that day. An affidavit from Connie Copeland states she ordered a pizza, while Mr. Moore did not, indicating that alternative sources for the information Defendant seeks exist. As Defendant has not demonstrated that the information cannot be obtained through other means, the Court will not consider whether a compelling public interest in the information exists. To remove the shield protection for a news reporter under Tenn. Code Ann. 24-1-208(c), all three required factors must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which Defendant has failed to do. Consequently, the Court denies Defendant's request to divest WREG-TV News Channel 3 of its protection.