In re Madden

In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998),[1] is a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that established the Madden test, a test used to determine whether an individual is a journalist with standing to claim journalist's privilege.

In re Madden
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case nameIn re: Mark Madden; Titan Sports, Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc.; World Championship Wrestling, Inc.; Eric Bischoff; Titan Sports, Inc.
DecidedJuly 21, 1998
Citation(s)151 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 1998)
Case history
Prior historyTitan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 967 F. Supp. 142 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
Holding
An individual may be afforded a journalist's privilege if he can prove he is (1) engaged in investigative reporting, (2) is gathering news, and (3) possessed the intent at the inception of the news-gathering process to disseminate the news to the public.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingRichard Lowell Nygaard, Samuel Alito, Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.)
Case opinions
MajorityNygaard, joined by a unanimous court

In re Madden was an appeal by Titan Sports, now known as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., in the case Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc.[2] Titan, the parent company of World Wrestling Entertainment, at the time known as the World Wrestling Federation, had sought to discover anonymous sources used by Mark Madden, an employee of World Championship Wrestling (WCW), which at the time had Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. as its parent company. Madden, citing his journalist's privilege, refused to disclose the names of the sources during his deposition. The District Court upheld his right to the privilege under Pennsylvania's shield law.[2] Titan appealed the initial ruling, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Madden was an entertainer and not a journalist.[1]

Known as the Madden test, the Court said that an individual may be afforded a journalist's privilege if he can prove he is (1) engaged in investigative reporting, (2) is gathering news, and (3) possessed the intent at the inception of the news-gathering process to disseminate the news to the public.[3]

See also

References
  1. In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).
  2. Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 967 F. Supp. 142 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
  3. In re Madden, 151 F.3d at 131.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.