Vinogradov v. Bozeman Daily Chronicle [1]

Aleksandra Vinogradov, a professor at Montana State University, subpoenaed the Bozeman Daily Chronicle for information concerning comments made on the Chronicle's website [2] in connection with two articles published in March and April 2009 regarding the trial in Vinogradov's gender discrimination suit against her employer, Montana State University.

Vinogradov sought this information to support a request for a new trial in her discrimination lawsuit against MSU, which ended in a jury verdict against her in April 2009. Her attorneys argued that one of the commenters to the April 2009 article who posted under the pseudonym “mbcomstock” was Brandon Comstock, one of the jurors in the case. The comment in question read: "Note that this was the third time this same woman has sued the university for discrimination, and her third loss. Maybe, just maybe, instead of everybody else being conspiring liars hiding a ‘big dirty secret,’ the problem is really her." In a May 2009 hearing, Comstock testified that he was not the author of the comment, but acknowledged that his father might have written it.

Vinogradov claimed this post proved the jury was improperly informed of her prior suits against MSU. She moved for a new trial based on jury misconduct and served a subpoena on the newspaper requesting that the Chronicle turn over:

"1) copies of all postings made to the Chronicle's website or blog relating to the two articles; 2) the names and identities off [sic] persons and organizations that posted such comments; 3) the IP addresses associated with each comment posted; 4) the IP addresses associated with each viewer of the two articles during the period of March 23, 2009 to April 3, 2009; 5) all computer logs generated in connection with the two articles; and 6) any and all e-mail communications and other written communications that the Chronicle and its website, its agents and its employees have received or sent on or after March 23, 2009 relating to the two articles." 

On June 3, 2009, the Chronicle opposed Vinogradov's motions, arguing that the information and documents she sought "are protected under Montana's Media Confidentiality Act, specifically  26-1-902, MCA [4]." Ruling [3] at 3. The next day, MSU also opposed Vinogradov's motion to perpetuate, arguing that "the information she seeks is not relevant to the jury misconduct issue" and therefore did not satisfy procedural requirements. Id [3]. 

On June 5, 2009, the court denied Vinogradov's motion to perpetuate testimony pending appeal on procedural grounds. The court did not address the newspaper's shield law argument or rule on its motion to quash the subpoena.  Later in June, the court denied Vinogradov's motion for a new trial. 

Vinogradov reportedly [5] will appeal this result.