HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - The Connecticut Supreme Court has delayed, for now, a decision on whether the state’s media shield law protects a blogger who published anonymous comments that a Hartford police officer considers defamatory.
Ruling on the narrow question of whether a trial judge’s discovery order was an appealable final judgement, the high court said it wasn’t and the blogger must first engage in negotiations with the plaintiff to try and work out a process for revealing information about the commentors.
Vincent Benvenuto sought a court order forcing Kevin Brookman to turn over internet protocol addresses and other identifying information about anonymous posts he claims are false and defamatory. Brookman publishes “We The People – Hartford,” a blog about local government, and Benevenuto, a police lieutenant, claims unknown colleagues used it to harm his reputation.
A trial judge ordered Brookman to turn over his cellphone and laptop, subject to a protective order shielding confidential information. Brookman appealed the order, supported by Public Citizen, to the state Supreme Court. They argued the blog was protected under Connecticut’s shield law and any interaction with the plaintiff’s lawyers could reveal confidential information and violate Brookman’s First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court ruled it was too early to decide anything, since the trial judge’s order only started the process of discovery. Brookman’s lawyer could refuse to cooperate, the court said, and only after the trial judge issues a final order can the defendant appeal. At that point the court might also take up the question of whether blogs are covered by the shield law.
Connecticut’s shield law doesn’t include “blog” in its description of “news media.” It lists “a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical; book publisher; news agency; wire service; radio or TV station or network” and other outlets, but not blogs.
“The parties have not yet attempted to negotiate the terms of the protective order or to agree on the search protocols that will be used in conducting the forensic analysis,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Instead, the defendant filed the present appeal without complying with the court’s order regarding these issues.”
The final judgment rule preserves judicial resources by preventing “piecemeal appeals,” the court said.
“An appeal by the defendant may be inevitable, as he predicts,” the court concluded. “That circumstance does not allow the defendant to jump the gun by obtaining appellate review before the judgment is final.”
Mario Cerame represents Brookman, while Gregory Jones represents the plaintiff.