441 U.S. 153 (1979)
In 1969-1970, Anthony Herbert, a retired Army officer with extended wartime service in Vietnam, accused his superior officers of covering up reports of atrocities and other war crimes and received widespread media attention.1
Three years later, on February 4, 1973, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. broadcast a report on Herbert and his accusations.2 The program was produced and edited by Barry Lando and narrated by Mike Wallace.3 Lando later published a related article in Atlantic Monthly magazine.4
Herbert sued Lando, Wallace, CBS, and Atlantic Monthly for defamation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction.5 In his complaint, Herbert alleged that the program and article falsely and maliciously portrayed him as a liar who had made war-crimes charges to explain his relief from command.6 He sought substantial damages for injury to his reputation and to the literary value of a book he had published recounting his experiences.7
Although Herbert conceded he was a public figure required to prove actual malice, he deposed Lando at length and sought an order to compel answers to a variety of questions to which response was refused on the ground that the First Amendment protected against inquiry into the state of mind of those who edit, produce, or publish, and into the editorial process.8 The District Court found the questions relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the defendant's state of mind was central to malice and ordered Lando to answer.9 The case was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).10
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.11 It held that the First Amendment supplied an absolute privilege protecting Lando from inquiry into his thoughts, opinions, and conclusions regarding the material gathered and his conversations with editorial colleagues.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.13
Whether the First Amendment provides an absolute privilege barring inquiry into the editorial processes and state of mind of media defendants in a defamation action brought by a public figure?14
No. The established facts demonstrate that Anthony Herbert, a public figure, sued Barry Lando, Mike Wallace, CBS, and Atlantic Monthly for defamation after the February 4, 1973 broadcast and related article portrayed him as a liar who fabricated war-crimes charges to explain his relief from command.17 Herbert conceded the actual malice standard but deposed Lando extensively on his conclusions about sources, assessments of their veracity, and conversations with editorial colleagues to obtain direct evidence of knowing or reckless falsehood.18 The District Court found these questions relevant under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b) because the defendant's state of mind was central to malice and ordered Lando to answer.19 The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the First Amendment supplied an absolute privilege shielding Lando from inquiry into his thoughts, opinions, and conclusions.20
The Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that no such privilege is required or authorized by the First Amendment because it would erect an impenetrable barrier to direct evidence of the critical element of actual malice and substantially enhance the plaintiff's already heavy burden of proof.21 Application of the rule to the named facts confirms that Herbert's discovery requests targeted precisely the subjective awareness of probable falsity that New York Times and its progeny made essential to liability.22 Shielding those materials would have prevented Herbert from meeting the convincing clarity standard through direct inquiry, contrary to the balance struck in prior cases that contemplated examination of the editorial process.23
The First Amendment does not provide an absolute privilege barring inquiry into the editorial processes and state of mind of media defendants in a defamation action brought by a public figure.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to stress that district courts supervising discovery in public figure libel suits must weigh First Amendment interests alongside the plaintiff's private needs.25 He noted that while no constitutional evidentiary privilege exists, trial judges should measure the degree of relevance required when a discovery demand arguably impinges on editorial judgment.26 He emphasized use of Rule 26(c) to prevent undue burden.27
This ensures that values protected by the First Amendment are carefully balanced even though they receive no absolute shield.28
Justice Stewart dissented on the ground that the case presented no occasion to address an editorial process privilege because, under New York Times, a publisher's motivation and internal editorial deliberations are irrelevant to actual malice.29 He maintained that the constitutional inquiry focuses solely on whether the defendant knew the published statement was false or published it in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.30 This renders questions about why material was included or excluded or about editorial conversations impermissible as not relevant under Rule 26(b).31
Whether prior First Amendment decisions require or authorize shielding the editorial process from discovery even when the inquiry would produce evidence material to proving actual malice?32
Prior First Amendment decisions, including New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., neither require nor authorize shielding the editorial process from discovery.33 This holds even when the inquiry would produce evidence material to proving actual malice.34
No. The established facts show that Herbert's deposition questions to Lando directly concerned Lando's conclusions about the veracity of interviewees and his editorial exchanges with Wallace, matters the District Court explicitly found material to the actual malice element.35 The Court of Appeals nevertheless created an absolute privilege that would have barred all five categories of inquiry into the editorial process.36 The Supreme Court held that this result was unsupported by Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo or Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, which addressed governmental compulsion of publication rather than post-publication discovery in defamation suits.37 Those cases did not narrow the evidence available to plaintiffs under New York Times and its progeny, which have long permitted direct inquiry into the defendant's state of mind.38
Applying the rule to the named facts, the District Court's order compelling answers was consistent with the requirement that plaintiffs focus on the conduct and state of mind of the defendant.39 The Court of Appeals' privilege would have foreclosed precisely the evidence that prior decisions treated as admissible and relevant, including evidence of the kind relied upon in Butts to sustain a damages verdict.40
Prior First Amendment decisions do not require or authorize shielding the editorial process from discovery even when the inquiry would produce evidence material to proving actual malice.41
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented in part, agreeing that no absolute privilege protects factual matters or mental processes but arguing that predecisional communications among editors deserve qualified protection.42 He would have required a public figure plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of defamatory falsehood before the privilege yields.43 This approach preserves candid editorial discussion while still allowing recovery when the publication itself constitutes unprotected speech.44
The privilege would yield only upon a specific demonstration that the material is necessary to prove the claim.45
Whether the balance struck in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be modified to create an evidentiary privilege for editorial conversations and conclusions in defamation litigation?46
The balance struck in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should not be modified to create an evidentiary privilege for editorial conversations and conclusions.47 Such a privilege would substantially interfere with a defamation plaintiff's ability to prove actual malice without sufficient justification.48
No. The established facts reveal that Herbert faced the burden of proving actual malice with convincing clarity after the CBS broadcast and Atlantic Monthly article damaged his reputation and the literary value of his book.49 The Court of Appeals' absolute privilege would have prevented direct evidence of Lando's assessments of source veracity and internal editorial discussions, making it far more difficult for Herbert to meet that standard.50 The Supreme Court declined to modify the New York Times balance, holding that the claimed chilling effect on editorial candor was insufficient to justify the privilege because any inhibition flowing from fear of liability for knowing or reckless falsehoods is precisely what prior cases deemed consistent with the First Amendment.51 Direct inquiry into the editorial process was viewed as consistent with obtaining accurate results and no more threatening to truthful publication than the indirect evidence already permitted.52
Application of the rule to the named facts confirms that the District Court's discovery order properly allowed Herbert to pursue evidence central to his claim.53 Creating the privilege would have enhanced the press's protection beyond what New York Times contemplated while leaving plaintiffs without adequate means to vindicate reputational interests that the Court has repeatedly recognized as a basic concern.54
The balance struck in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should not be modified to create an evidentiary privilege for editorial conversations and conclusions in defamation litigation.55
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall dissented in part, contending that unconstrained discovery of the editorial process threatens the uninhibited debate protected by New York Times.56 He would have imposed stricter relevance standards on discovery requests in defamation cases and recognized a limited privilege shielding the substance of editorial conversations to preserve candid prepublication dialogue among journalists.57 He argued that such protection is necessary to prevent self-censorship beyond what the substantive actual malice standard already imposes.58
The privilege would apply unless the plaintiff demonstrates a specific need tied to proving falsity.59