MINNESOTA COURT REQUIRES REPORTER DISCLOSURE IN DEFAMATION.

A former high school football coach suing a school district for defamation has the right to force a newspaper reporter to disclose the source of disparaging quotes about him, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Sept. 11.

The court said disclosure is the only way plaintiff Richard Weinberger can show "actual malice" on the part of the school officials he is suing - that is, that they made the statements either knowing they were false or with reckless disregard to their truth of falsity.

Justice Alan Page wrote for the majority of the en banc court in Weinberger v. Independent School District No. 622, et al. (C7-01-2021) that "when the identity of the speaker is hidden under the cloak of anonymity because the speaker has published his or her allegedly defamatory statements through a newspaper that has not attributed the statements directly to the speaker, it is self-evident that the identity of the speaker will lead to relevant evidence on the issue of actual malice."

Weinberger sued school district officials over a January 1997 article in the Maplewood Review saying school officials didn't intend to renew his contract as head football coach at Tartan High School and had "had enough of Weinberger and his behavior."

Among other things, the article quoted "sources" as saying "the coach is known for his temper, inappropriate comments and foul language, which people claim he uses to intimidate players."

Depositions from the defendant school officials failed to identify the source of the characterization, and Maplewood Review reporter Wally Wakefield refused to comply with a subpoena ordering him to submit to a deposition. So Weinberger won a court order requiring him to disclose "which defendant, if any, is the original source of the following statements."

An appellate court reversed the ruling, but the state's highest court revived it.

Justice Page said the case fits into the exception for defamation case in Minnesota's reporter-shield statute.

"In order to protect the public interest and the free flow of information, the news media should have the benefit of a substantial privilege not to reveal sources of information or to disclose unpublished information," the law says.

But it says that prohibition "shall not apply in any defamation action where the person seeking disclosure can demonstrate that the identity of the course will lead to relevant evidence on the issue of actual malice."

Requiring Wakefield to disclose the identity of the unnamed sources who defendants in the defamation action, Page wrote, "will lead to evidence having a tendency to prove or disprove" that whoever made the remarks knew they were false or showed reckless disregard to their truth or falsity.

Justice Helen Meyer dissented, joined by Justice Paul Anderson.

"The majority fails to give any First Amendment context to its decision," Meyer wrote.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes, she said, "the majority of federal circuit courts have fashioned balancing tests to determine whether reporters may maintain the confidentiality of their sources in actions where the news gatherer or publisher is not a party," she said.

In balancing Weinberger's interest in protecting his reputation against the public interest in robust and uninhibited public debate, she said, two factors weigh against him: Weinberger has produced "scant evidence" the statements were false, and he hasn't shown that identifying the source of the quotes is necessary to his case.