Good morning Washington.

Quickly navigate Morning Reading List:

REVOLVING DOOR | NEWSPAPERS | TV | ONLINE MEDIA | MAGAZINES | JOBS

In the case of Steven Hatfill v. Alberto Gonzales, et al., United States District Judge for the District of Columbia Reggie Walton issued a ruling today that will compel six reporters to “provide full and truthful responses to questions propounded to them by Dr. Hatfill’s attorneys.”

Hatfill, you’ll recall, is the scientist deemed a “person of interest” by the Justice Department in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Walton will want these reporters to reveal the names of law enforcement sources who provided details of the Hatfill investigation.

Download the full .pdf here.

In his conclusion, Walton writes:

Based on the foregoing analysis, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Testimony from Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Allan Lengel, Toni Locy, and James Stewart [D.E. # 157] is granted. These reporters are therefore ordered to comply with the subpoenas issued to them by Dr. Hatfill and to provide full and truthful responses to questions propounded to them by Dr. Hatfill’s attorneys. On the other hand, the motions to quash the subpoenas of ABC, The Washington Post, Newsweek, CBS, The Associated Press, the Baltimore Sun, and The New York Times are granted.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of August, 2007.

REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge

Klaidman and Iskioff work for Newsweek, Ross works for ABC, Lengel for the Washington Post, Stewart for CBS and Locy for USA Today.

(More Background)

The first time around, scientist Steven Hatfill subpoenaed Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, ABC’s Brian Ross, The Washington Post’s Allan Lengel, CBS’s Jim Stewart, and USA Today’s’ Toni Locy.

But he ain’t done yet:

This time, Hatfill has subpoenaed eight news organizations, including three that he didn’t before — The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, and the Associated Press. The subpoenas require organizations to turn over documents relating to Hatfill, from email contacts to notes to company policies about confidential sourcing. They also mandate that a representative of each company appear for a deposition at the office of Hatfill’s lawyers on various dates over the next two weeks.

Hatfill has yet to ask Walton to compel the individual reporters to identify their sources. It’s unclear whether he will subpoena more individual reporters this time around, but court documents indicate the names of 22 journalists whose bylines appeared on articles related to Hatfill.

For the Justice Department, this is already going too far. “The court should reject this attempt to expand discovery,” prosecutors wrote.

Lawyers for the various news outlets say they have yet to decide how they’ll respond to the subpoenas. For now, says Kevin Baine, a partner at Williams & Connolly who represents the Post, Newsweek, and ABC, “We’re not going to be in initial responses handing over anything or giving testimony that identifies sources.”