Question
I’m a freelance writer pursuing a story about another publication,but I’m concerned because much of the info we have consists of leaked internal company documents from a disgruntled ex-employee (a notice of tax lien, e-mails, bill collection notices). This is a private company,not a public or governmental entity, so I have no way of independently acquiring or verifying these same documents. Are we within our rights to use the documents in the story? They appear legitimate, but were clearly not meant for anyone other than the owner of the company we’re profiling.Please advise.
Answer
Although we cannot advise youas to your legal rights in this situation,the following information might be useful. Generally speaking, the freedom togather news includes protection for receiving confidential information,so long as the reporter does not break the law to obtain it. In mostcases, reporters are protected from liability for receiving informationthat was intended to be confidential, even if the source of theinformation was not supposed to disclose it.
For example, the SupremeCourt held that despite a state statute requiring the government to keepthe names of sexual offense victims private, it was not unlawful for anewspaper to receive (through an erroneously released police report) andpublish the name of a sexual assault victim. Florida Star v. B.J.F.,491 U.S. 524 (1989).
Under the same legal principles, reporters whoreceive copies of leaked documents are generally not liable forreceiving them and reporting on any newsworthy contents. The primarycomplicating factor in these situations comes into play when thedocuments were obtained illegally and passed along to the media, thougheven in those cases reporting on the documents might be protected. See,e.g., Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (imposition of liabilityon the media for broadcasting part of a telephone conversation betweentwo union representatives that was illegally recorded by an unknownperson violated the First Amendment).
Note that in the much publicizediPhone situation, the issue seems to be whether or not the media entitycan be said to have purchased stolen goods (the phone) — not that themedia entity disseminated information it should not have.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.