Epstein Secrets

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

96), a leak of confidential interview transcripts from CBS to the New York Daily News during the epic face-off between 60 Minutes and whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand on one side and the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company on the other, did not waive CBS's privilege in the documents under the Shield Law except as t

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

96), a leak of confidential interview transcripts from CBS to the New York Daily News during the epic face-off between 60 Minutes and whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand on one side and the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company on the other, did not waive CBS's privilege in the documents under the Shield Law except as t

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co

ld that a leak of confidential interview transcripts from CBS to the New York Daily News during the epic battle between 60 Minutes and whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand on one side and the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company on the other, did nor waive CBS's privilege in the documents under the New York Shield Law e