Martin v. Albany Business Journal, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the employer’s knowledge of the identities of employees who gave statements to the DOL is not “equivalent to knowledge of which of those persons were informers within the context of the privilege.”
• commenting that requiring personal review by an Agency head would bring the government to a virtual standstill
• Acting Administrator of Wage and Hour Division of DOL is a high level subordinate/delegatee who can properly invoke the deliberative process privilege
• declining to order production of statements of individuals identified by the Secretary as employees but not informants, because to do so “might reveal [the employee] as an informer”
• “The informant’s privilege is waived when the moving party legitimately learns the identity of the informant at issue.”
• “Given the protective purpose of the informant’s privilege, [defendant’s] purported distinction between ‘informant’s’ and ‘people who give information’ is inapposite.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).