Times bared from using confidential source material in defense

NY Times:

A federal magistrate judge ruled on Friday that The New York Times may not rely in any way on information its columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, may have received from two Federal Bureau of Investigation officials in its defense of a defamation suit brought by a former government scientist.

The judge, Liam O’Grady, issued the ruling as a sanction against The Times for refusing to disclose or force Mr. Kristof to disclose the identities of the two confidential F.B.I. sources he used in writing a series of columns about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.

Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who once worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted in a lawsuit that the columns defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks.

In its filings, The Times has suggested that Mr. Kristof had numerous sources for the columns. Of those, Mr. Kristof initially refused to identify five, saying he had promised them confidentiality. He has since disclosed the identities of three, saying those sources recently released him from his pledge.

In issuing the ruling, Judge O’Grady rejected a series of harsher sanctions sought by Mr. Hatfill’s lawyers, including a request that the court impose a $25,000-a-day fine on The Times until it named the two F.B.I. officials.

Judge O’Grady issued his ruling from the bench in Alexandria, Va., where he sits and where the trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 29. The ruling means that when Mr. Kristof testifies during the trial on behalf of The Times, he may not cite any information he may have received from the two confidential sources as substantiation for the columns.

...

As someone who arbitrates dispute, I find the judges ruling in this case a pretty elegant way to deal with the refusal to produce evidence. The NY Times appears to be whistling past the grave yard in its response to the judges ruling.