§
Subdivision 1.Disclosure prohibition; applicability.
The prohibition of disclosure provided in section 595.023 shall not apply in any defamation action where the person seeking disclosure can demonstrate that the identity of the source will lead to relevant evidence on the issue of actual malice.
§
Subd. 2.Disclosure conditions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1, the identity of the source of information shall not be ordered disclosed unless the following conditions are met:
(a) that there is probable cause to believe that the source has information clearly relevant to the issue of defamation;
(b) that the information cannot be obtained by any alternative means or remedy less destructive of first amendment rights.
§
Subd. 3.Determination; appeal.
The court shall make its order on the issue of disclosure after making findings of fact, which order may be appealed to the court of appeals according to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. During the appeal the order is stayed and nondisclosure shall remain in full force and effect.
Notes of Decisions
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review, 668 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 87× “" Minn.Stat. § 595.025, subd. 1. The person seeking disclosure must also show that "there is probable cause to believe that the source has information clearly relevant to the issue of defamation" and that "the information cannot be obtained by any alternative means or remedy…”
Range Dev. Co. of Chisholm v. Star Tribune, Paul McEnroe, 885 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 22× “Minn. Stat. § 595.025 . Specifically, a court may order disclosure of a confidential source if “the person seeking disclosure ean demonstrate that the identity of the source will lead to relevant evidence on the issue of actual malice.”
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review, 648 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 11× “Appellant Wally Wakefield, a reporter, appeals from the district court’s order compelling him to disclose, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 595.025 (defamation exception to the Free Flow of Information Act), which defendant, if any, is the source of statements in a news article.”
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11), 557 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1, the identity of the source of information shall not be ordered disclosed unless the following conditions are met: (a) that there is probable cause to believe that the source has information clearly relevant to the issue of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.