# Zerilli v. Smith

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 13, 1981 · 656 F.2d 705

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845411

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony T. ZERILLI and Michael Polizzi v. William French SMITH, Attorney General of the United States Anthony J. ZERILLI v. William French SMITH, Attorney General of the United States
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 13, 1981
- **Citations:** 656 F.2d 705; 211 U.S. App. D.C. 116
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robb
- **Judges:** Penn, Robb, Wright
- **Cited by:** 159 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845411

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[e]ven when the information is crucial to a litigant’s case, reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources only after the litigant has shown that he has exhausted every reasonable alternative source of information”
- holding that the district court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as conceded because the plaintiff failed to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the defendant’s motion
- recognizing a qualified reporter’s privilege of protecting confidential sources that “should be readily available” in civil cases
- explaining that “[wjithout an unfettered press, citizens would be far less able to make informed political, social, and economic choices”
- noting that in some circumstances a court may require a party to depose as many as sixty people before concluding that the party has exhausted reasonably available alternative sources of confidential information

## Opinion text

ROBB, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result, upon the ground that before asking the court to compel answers from the reporter Kantor the plaintiffs failed to explore alternative sources of information that were plainly available to them. This failure justified the court’s refusal to compel answers from Kantor.
I do not join in the broad statements concerning the “reporter’s privilege” set out in the majority opinion. In my judgment this sweeping exposition is unnecessary to the decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845411. Public record. Not legal advice.