Tennessee Supreme Court expands protections for journalists facing libel claims

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded protections for reporters facing defamation claims while also ruling that reporters facing those claims could be ordered to identify their sources in court.

The ruling came in an ongoing legal battle between Phil Williams, WTVF NewsChannel 5's chief investigative reporter, and Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk.

Funk filed a $200 million libel suit against Williams in February 2016, following two news stories about a deal Funk struck with David Chase, a Nashville developer. Williams reported on a deposition in which Chase suggested that he believed he was being “blackmailed” by Funk during plea deal arrangements.

Funk's legal team wanted to see Williams' investigative files related to the story to determine if he acted in malice, or ill will, an element previously necessary for public officials to win a libel case.

The court denied the request to see those files and found that malice could no longer be used against journalists in defamation suits.

Court: Motive can't be factor in defamation cases

In their unanimous ruling, the state's high court said a reporter's motive could not be used as a factor in defamation cases, ruling the question of malice moot and broadening the state's fair-report privilege, which protects journalists from libel claims.

"The Supreme Court explained that, so long as reports of official acts and proceedings are fair and accurate, the fair report privilege applies," a media release from the court stated.

However, the court did say journalists using the fair-report privilege to defend against defamation claims could be ordered to disclose the source of their reporting in court.

The court emphasized the distinction between identifying a source and disclosing information from a source in its 20-page order.

"The exception to the shield law allows a court to compel disclosure of the source of a media defendant’s information — how media defendants know something; it does not authorize a court to compel media defendants to disclose the information the source provided," the court found.

Attorneys for Williams already have said their source was the deposition and court files in the Chase case — "the trial court will have to determine whether these disclosures amount to a sufficient description of the source of information," the Supreme Court ruled.

The trial court initially ordered Williams to hand over his investigative files. But the state appeals court overturned that decision, leading to the review of that question by the Supreme Court.

With that question settled, the case returns to the trial court for continued consideration of the overarching libel claim.

Attorney Ron Harris, who is representing Williams and the TV station, said his clients were pleased with the court's ruling.

Attorney Jim Kay, who represents Funk, said Wednesday's opinion was "the result that we expected." He said Funk's legal team would continue develop their case and push to set a trial on the libel claim this year.

TENNESSEE LIBEL LAW:State Supreme Court's power to freeze freedom of the press | Opinion

FROM THE ARCHIVES:Developer David Chase sues Glenn Funk, Nashville police

DOWNLOAD THE APP:  Stay up to date with Tennessean coverage on your mobile device - for free

Reach Adam Tamburin at 615-726-5986 and atamburin@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter @tamburintweets.