Nevada Supreme Court considers reporters’ rights

As supreme courts often do, Nevada’s high court on Tuesday boiled down a hearing on the state shield law to a question: Is a reporter’s privilege to keep sources secret an absolute right or does it have limits?

The statute is back before the Nevada Supreme Court after a district-level judge ruled that it protected Dana Gentry, a producer for Jon Ralston’s “Face to Face” TV show, and that she should not have to disclose information linked to her news stories. That ruling was a small part of an ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Jeff Guinn and Aspen Financial Services against investors featured on Ralston’s program.

Gentry is not a subject of the suit but was being called to testify. Media organizations including the Review-Journal and the Nevada Press Association have filed briefs in support of her.

State law guards against journalists having to reveal information acquired during the news gathering process. But Guinn’s attorney, John Bailey, contends what he wants is Gentry’s personal — not professional — information. Gentry conspired against Guinn, Bailey said, because her journalistic ethics were compromised: she’d accepted gifts from sources and helped someone get a job at her station. Those sources spoke unfavorably of Guinn.

“The statute is an appropriate statute. It just doesn’t apply in this case,” Bailey said. “She had no intent of disclosing this private information.”

Justice James Hardesty pointed out Nevada law, unlike in many other states, protects reporters’ published and unpublished information. He also brought up the Watergate scandal, exposed by The Washington Post courtesy of journalism’s most famous secret source.

“It’s an interesting analysis,” Hardesty said, “but would Bob Woodward have been required to disclose a $10,000 payout by Deep Throat?”

Gentry’s attorney, Don Campbell, said Bailey’s allegations are false and that his client had only a work relationship with Stephen and Victoria Quinn and Donna and Charles Ruthe, subjects of the defamation suit.

“A news reporter should not be dragged into private litigation,” Campbell said.

Justices questioned both attorneys but reiterated a few points.

They might not rule on this issue at all. The lawsuit is still in the discovery phase, meaning both sides are still collecting evidence.

Justice Michael Cherry suggested taking this question to the Supreme Court could be premature. “Why should we intervene at this time?”

Campbell said the justices shouldn’t.

If the court does make a decision — which could take three to six months — Bailey hopes it’s based on his contention that Gentry should have to offer an affidavit saying her conversations with sources were part of news gathering. She hasn’t done that, Bailey said, because she’d commit perjury.

Justice Michael Douglas restated another question that had been asked during the hearing: “Does she have an obligation to at least make the bland acknowledgment that she was doing something for a story or not?”

Contact reporter Adam Kealoha Causey at acausey@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0361.