Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch2_p00011.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 21 Edwards with Churcher, although she could not specify the attorney-client privileged information she shared. Menninger Decl. Ex. B, p. 297-300. None of the communications or correspondence with Edwards, or any of Plaintiffs other attorneys, are in a news gathering capacity, and are not covered by the Shield Law. Likewise, Churcher apparently corresponded with the FBI and US Attorney’s office regarding Plaintiff, and specifically states she is not acting in her journalistic capacity. Menninger Decl. Ex A, 3. Communications that occurred that were not forwarded or copies to Plaintiff have not been produced. Churcher specifically states that she would like to be treated as a confidential source of information. /d., p. 8. She is not gathering news, she is attempting to assist law enforcement and providing them with information she has gathered. First, this is not news gathering activity, and clearly not related to confidential source. Even if there was some claim of qualified privilege, having shared information with the FBI or other law enforcement, there is a waiver of any protection of the Shield Law. See Guice-Mills v. Forbes, 12 Misc. 3d 852, 857, 819 N.Y.S.2d 432, 436 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (professional journalist waived the exemption of the Shield Law if they voluntarily disclose or consent to disclosure of otherwise covered information to third parties). None of the documents or information described above is covered by the New York Shield Law because Churcher was not engaged in the news-gathering process. Regardless, there is no proof that any of the information sought by Ms. Maxwell in the subpoena is confidential information from a confidential source, nor was it intended kept confidential. The requested information must be produced and Churcher deposed as her testimony is critical to the truth defense in this case.