Condit

Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc.

Good Law
289 F. Supp. 2d 1175·2003 WL 22502778·31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2331·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19257
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 20, 2003CV-F-02-5198 OWW LJOCalifornia2,440 words

Opinion

Opinion

Oneill, J.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION RE JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE

Plaintiff Carolyn Condit moves for an order overruling the confidential journalist privilege objection stated in response to Interrogatory No. 9, in response to Document Request no. 7,8,12, and 13, and to order defendants to identity its confidential sources in supplement disclosures pursuant to Rule 26, along with other remedies. On June 12, 2003, the parties lodged their Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement and accompanying exhibits, which were filed with the Court on June 16, 2003. The motion came on for hearing on June 20, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 6 of this Court. Plaintiff Carolyn Condit appeared by counsel Neville Johnson of Johnson & Rishwain. Defendants National Enquirer, Inc. and American Media, Inc. appeared by counsel Thomas Kelley of Faegre & Benson and by counsel Bruce Owdom of Dietrich Galsrud Malleck and Aune. On June 19, 2003, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Supplemental Authority and Evidence” in conjunction with this motion. As these papers are untimely pursuant to Local Rule 37-351, the Court elects not to consider the supplemental papers. The papers were filed after 11:00 a.m. the day before…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.