100 Happy Lane · Pleasantville, NJ 10101 · (201) 222-2222

To: [Requesting Attorney]
From: Shir Eshkol
Date: October 10, 2021.
Subject: Peggy Olesman – Subpoena (Harrison v. Erikson Advertising L-2214-21)


Is Ms. Peggy Olesman (“Olesman”) entitled to a squash the subpoena seeking her testimony and
documents with respect to her blog post about sexual harassment in her former workplace, under New
Jersey’s newsperson privilege?

Brief Answer

Yes. Olesman is entitled to a quash of the said subpoena. To gain the protection of the
newsperson privilege, Olesman must prove, prima facie, three elements: (1) a connection to news media;
(2) a purpose to disseminate news; and (3) that the materials sought were obtained in the course of
pursuing professional newsgathering activities. Here, the last two elements (2-3) are well established.
Whether the first element is satisfied is not as clear; however, given the New Jersey courts’ broad
interpretation of the newsperson privilege, there is a substantial likelihood it would apply to Olesman’s


On August 9, 2021, Ms. Olesman was served a subpoena in connection with a complaint (“the
Complaint”) which was brought against Erikson Advertising LLP (“Erikson”) and its CEO (“the
Defendants”). The Complaint was filed in July 2021 in New Jersey State Court by a former employee of
Erikson, Ms. Harrison (“Plaintiff”). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the
Plaintiff in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. It also alleges defamation through a
publication of an inter-office memorandum about Plaintiff’s departure from Erikson.

Olesman is a former employee of Erikson. Olesman started her way as a secretary at Cooper &
Stirland in 2012 after completing a graduate degree in Engineering. She became a junior copywriter and
worked under the supervision of the Plaintiff, who was an equity partner there. In March 2020, Cooper
& Stirland merged with Erikson. According to Olesman, after the merger, the Plaintiff’s role was
minimized, and she started working under Mr. Ferg Donnelson (“Donnelson”). The Plaintiff told
Olesman about Donnelson’s harassment as described in the Complaint (sending her chocolate and
flowers with lewd notes). Olesman also heard that despite the Plaintiff’s complaint, Erikson did nothing
to stop Donnelson. In December 2020, Olesman left Erikson.
Shortly before leaving Erikson, on November 30, 2021, Olesman created a website called “Peg
Tales” (“the Website”). On June 15, 2021, Olesman published a post titled “Advertising for Equality”
(“the June 15, 2021 Post” or ”or”the Post”) on the Website. The Post mentioned Erikson’s historical
mistreatment of women and invited readers to discuss the issue of workplace discrimination in general.
It was published under a section titled the “cruel, cruel world”. 1 According to Olesman, this section was
intended to include “hot-button” social issues. However, in fact, Olesman has only published in it the
June 15, 2021, Post. In addition to this section, the Website includes two more sections: the style
section, which has 4 short posts, two of which (dated 11/30/20 and 1/15/21) are dedicated to fashion
items; and the travel section, which includes 3 short posts about traveling (dated 15/3/21; 5/1/21;
A copy of the Website’s pages is attached as Appendix 1.
A copy of the Website’s Analytical Report is attached as Appendix 2.
The subpoena seeks Ms. Olesman’s testimony about the case. In addition, the subpoena seeks the
following documents: (a) Ms. Olesman’s “full and complete file” concerning the June 15, 2021 post;
and (b) “[a]ny and all documents, including emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, and a list of all
people who contributed information concerning the June 15, 2021 post…”.

1 Appendix 1, page 10.


N.J.S.A. 2A:84A–21 and N.J.R.E. 508—also known as the New Jersey “Shield Law”—affords
newspersons the privilege of not disclosing confidential sources and other kinds of news or information. 2
The said law has been described by the New Jersey Supreme Court in In re Venezia, 191 N.J. 259, 269
(2007), as among the broadest in the nation. The seminal case regarding the applicability of the
newsperson’s privilege is Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, 206 N.J. 209 (2011). In Too Much Media, the
New Jersey Supreme Court held that a claimant seeking the protection of the newsperson’s privilege
must prove, prima facie, three elements: (a) a connection to news media; (b) a purpose to gather,
procure, transmit, compile, edit or disseminate news; and (c) that the materials sought were obtained in
the course of pursuing professional newsgathering activities. 3 The Court further held that “… self-
appointed journalists or entities with little track record who claim the privilege require more
scrutiny… the popularity of the Internet has resulted in millions of bloggers who have no connection to
traditional media… In those cases, a more probing hearing would likely be needed to determine if
the privilege applies”. 4 (Emphasis added).
I will now examine whether Olesman will be able to prove, prima facie, these three elements.
A. The first element: does Olesman have “a connection to news media”?
To gain the protection of the Shield Law, Olesman must first show “a connection to news media”.
The Court in Too Much Media observed that this connection does not require a newsperson “be

2 N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21 provides: “Subject to Rule 37 [Rule 530], a person engaged on, engaged in, connected with, or
employed by news media for the purpose of gathering, procuring, transmitting, compiling, editing or disseminating
news for the general public or on whose behalf news is so gathered, procured, transmitted, compiled, edited or disseminated
has a privilege to refuse to disclose, in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding or before any investigative body, including,
but not limited to, any court, grand jury, petit jury, administrative agency, the Legislature or legislative committee, or
a. The source, author, means, agency or person from or through whom any information was procured, obtained,
supplied, furnished, gathered, transmitted, compiled, edited, disseminated, or delivered; and
b. Any news or information obtained in the course of pursuing his professional activities whether or not it is
3 Too Much Media, at 241-42.
4 Id., at 383.

employed as a journalist for a traditional newspaper or have a direct tie to an established magazine.” Too
Much Media, supra, 206 N.J. at 230. Olesman is the owner and the operator of “Peg Tales” Website and
the author of all its posts, including the June 15, 2021, Post. As such, she has “a connection” to the
Website. The question is, however, whether the Website falls under the Shield Law’s definitions of
“news media”?
N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21a(a) defines “news media” as:
“…newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio,
television or other similar printed, photographic, mechanical or electronic means of
disseminating news to the general public.” (Emphasis added).
N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21a(b) further defines “news” as:
“[A]ny written, oral or pictorial information gathered, procured, transmitted, compiled,
edited or disseminated by, or on behalf of any person engaged in, engaged on,
connected with or employed by a news media and so procured or obtained while such
required relationship is in effect.” (Emphasis added).
The definition of “news media” includes not only traditional communication means such as
“newspapers” but also “other similar… mechanical or electronic means of disseminating news to the
general public”. These definitions make it clear that the Legislature was concerned with protecting
entities generally viewed as part of the news gathering apparatus in the United States 5 . In Too Much
Media, the New Jersey Supreme Court discussed whether comments posted on an internet message
board fall under the definition of “news media”. The Court concluded that such comments do not qualify
as “news media”, however, it did explicitly recognize that a “single blogger might qualify for coverage
under the Shield Law provided she met the statute’s criteria.” 6 The Plaintiff can make several arguments
in an attempt to show that the Website is not “similar” to traditional means of disseminating news to the
general public, such as a “newspaper” or a “magazine”. I will now discuss these potential arguments.
The Formal Characteristics of The Website (Subscription, Posts Frequency, Etc.)
N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21a defines “newspaper” as “a paper that is printed and distributed ordinarily
not less frequently than once a week and that contains news, articles of opinion, editorials, features,
5 State, Department of Law Pub. Safety v. Bigham, 119 N.J. 646, 651, 575 A.2d 868 (1990).
6 Supra, note 3Id., at 237.

advertising, or other matter regarded as of current interest, has a paid circulation and has been entered at
a United States post office as second class matter.” Here, the Website’s posts were not “distributed
ordinarily” (for example, in the form of a newsletter distributed by email to subscribers). In addition,
posts were not published on a regular basis and at a weekly frequency. Olesman published her blog posts
only once or twice a month, and during December 2020 and February 2021 she hasn’t published any
posts. The Website also does not meet the criteria for entering the U.S. post office as second class matter
according to The Domestic Mail Manual. 7 The Plaintiff may therefore argue that the Website is not
“similar” to a “newspaper”.
Likewise, Plaintiff may argue that the Website is not “similar” to a “magazine”. A “magazine”
is defined in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21a as “a publication containing news which is published and distributed
periodically, has a paid circulation and has been entered at a United States post office as second class
matter.” The Website is not “distributed periodically”, it does not have “a paid circulation”, and, again,
does meet the said criteria.
Nevertheless, given the New Jersey Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the “similarity”
requirement, these arguments are unlikely to prevail. Throughout the years, New Jersey courts have
gradually broadened the scope of the Shield Law and applied it to various written publications, including
ones that lacked the formal characteristics of a “newspaper”, a “magazine” or other traditional media
means. In the Avila case, the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division held that a weekly tabloid
paper that was distributed for free and lacked postal designation is “similar” enough to a “newspaper”. 8
In Trump v. O’Brien, the New Jersey Superior Court found that a biographical book containing personal

7 The Manual is incorporated by reference in 39 C.F.R. § 111.1. It includes the following criteria: the publication (1) is
printed and distributed once a week; (2) is published with the intent to continue publication indefinitely; (3) the primary
distribution of each issue was made before that of each succeeding issue; (4) it’s primary purpose is the transmission of
information; (5) it contains news, articles of opinion, editorials, features, advertising, and other matter regarded as of current
interest; (6) it exhibits continuity by the same style, format, themes and subject matter of successive issues; (7) no issue
contains more than 75% advertising; (8) it is not an auxiliary to a business that uses the publication to advance its main
business interests.
8 In In re Avila, 206 N.J. Super. 61, 66 (App. Div. 1985).

and financial information about the former President, Donald Trump, falls into the “news media”,
although it did not satisfy most of the elements of a “newspaper” (besides being printed and priced). 9
In Too Much Media the New Jersey Supreme Court held that “certain online sites could satisfy
the law’s standard”. 10 To demonstrate this, the Court referred to other courts’ decisions that applied the
newsperson privilege to online publications. 11 This implies that the Court recognizes that the Shield Law
is applicable to online publications, even though they lack the formal characteristics of traditional media
(ordinary distribution, weekly frequency, paid circulation, and qualification for postal designation).
Indeed, in The County Watchers case, 12 the Superior Court of New Jersey applied the Shield law on an
online blog, “The County Watchers”, that did not have any of the formal characteristics of a
“newspaper” or other traditional news media. The Superior Court based its ruling on the fact that the
blog consisted of original posts that were gathered by using journalistic methods. The holding of the
County Watchers case, although not binding, demonstrates the broad application of the Shield Law
under Too Much Media.
The Website’s content
The Plaintiff may argue that the Website is not “similar” to traditional media means and attempt
to distinguish it from The County Watchers case, based on its content. The Plaintiff may contend that
unlike in The County Watchers case, here the Website does not discuss public matters and has no news
value. Instead, it is used to share Olesman’s personal and often random thoughts and experiences. To
illustrate, on June 30, 2021, Olesman published a post titled “I Hate To Fly” containing only 7 words:
“That is all. Just wanted to share.” Similar posts were published on May 1, 2021, and August 10, 2021.
9 403 N.J. Super. 281, 304 (App. Div. 2008).
10 In Too Much Media, the claimant was in the process of creating a website called “Pornafia” to publish posts alleging for
corruption in the online adult entertainment industry. However, since the website was still under work, she posted the
relevant posts as comments on an internet message board of a third party. Since the posts were eventually not published in the
blog, the Court did not conclude whether the Shield Law applied to it. With respect to the posts on the message board, the
Court reasoned that “[e do not believe that the Legislature intended to provide everyone who posts a comment on Oprano or a
response to an article on an absolute reporter’s privilege under the Shield Law.”
11 O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423, 44 (2006) (applying California’s newsperson’s privilege to an online
magazine dedicated to news and information about Apple Macintosh computers); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236,
240, 244 (D.D.C.1999) (assuming that the First Amendment reporter’s privilege applies to a website that started as a gossip
column about Hollywood and Washington, and later contained breaking news items and links to articles).
12 In re January 11, 2013 Subpoena by the Grand Jury of Union County, New Jersey, 432 N.J. Super. 570 (Super. Ct. 2013).

As for the so-called “cruel world” section, the Plaintiff may argue that it has no content besides the June
15, 2021, Post and that even this Post is merely a piece of gossip about Olesman’s previous workplace.
The Plaintiff may also point out that the Website’s posts are written in a breezy, non-formal language
and that Olesman had no educational background or experience in journalism when she wrote the Post.
The Plaintiff may therefore argue that “Peg Tales” is an entertainment blog at most, not a news media.
While these are serious arguments, they too are unlikely to preclude the Website from the
definition of “news” and “news media”. The definition of “news media” under the Shield Law is broad
and applies to all “news or information obtained in the course of pursuing […] professional activities”.
The definition of a “newspaper” includes publications that “contains news, articles of opinion, editorials,
features, advertising, or other matter regarded as of current interest”. Indeed, New Jersey courts have
broadly construed the terms “news media” and “news” and applied them to various kinds of
publications. 13
Furthermore, the New Jersey courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to distinguish between
“entertainment” and “news”. For example, in Trump v. O’Brien, the Superior Court’s Appellate Division
reasoned that the evaluation of the entertainment value versus news value of a publication is essentially
subjective. Consequently, it interpreted the term “news” to include any “matters of public interest”. 14
The Court further reasoned that “the Shield Law sensibly requires only that “one” of the main functions
[of the publication] be the dissemination of news….”. 15 In our case, the Website has three main functions,
and one of them is indeed to cover “hot-button” social issues. In Trump v. O’Brien, the Court also

13 See In re Woodhaven Lumber & Mill Work, 123 N.J. Super. 481, 497-8 (1991) (Shield Law applies to unpublished
photographs taken by a news photographer at a fire); Gastman v. N. Jersey Newspapers Co., 254 N.J. Super. 140, 145–46,
(App. Div. 1992) (Shield Law applies to a letter published anonymously in a “letters to the editor” column); In re
Burnett, 269 N.J. Super. 493, 500–02 (Law Div.1993) (Shield Law applies to information used in the preparation of an
annual insurance rating report issued by industry trade publication). See also: Stewart v. National Enquirer, 28 Media L.
Rptr. 1596 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (declaring as “news” a celebrity profile of Martha Stewart); People v. Ford, 2007 N.Y. Misc.
Lexis 55 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2007) (concerning video footage of non-public persons at a nightclub filmed for an MTV
show); Bement v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 29 Media L. Rptr. 2493 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.2001) (holding that the fact that a past Miss
Universe had become a CIA agent was “news”). See also supra note 10-11.
14 Trump v. O’Brien, supra note 8, at 296-97. In Kinsella v. Welch, 362 N.J. Super. 143, 154–55 (App. Div. 2003), the New
Jersey Superior Court explicitly rejected the claim that footage of a hospital emergency room for a reality-based television
show does not constitute “news” since it is a form of “entertainment”.
15 Id., at 296-97.

dismissed arguments regarding the “breezy, irreverent” writing style of the publication. Similar
arguments were rejected in The County Watchers case, holding that “the courts have not limited the
protection [of the Shield Law] to claimants who consistently and exclusively author newsworthy
writings, or only to those who uphold certain journalistic standards in their writing and conduct”. 16
In summary, whether the Website falls under the Shield Law is unclear; however, there seem to
be strong arguments in favor of its application on Olesman’s Post.

B. The Second Element: Did Olesman Have a Purpose to Gather or Disseminate News?
The second element that the claimant must show, prima facie, under Too Much Media, is a
purpose to gather, procure, transmit, compile, edit or disseminate news. The claimant’s testimony can
serve as sufficient evidence to establish this element. 17 According to the Superior Court’s holding in The
County Watchers case, it is sufficient to prove that one of the main purposes of the Website is
disseminating news to satisfy this element. Accordingly, it was held that the fact that a publisher of a
blog “has an official stated purpose of being a citizen watchdog and an advocate for transparency in
government” does not preclude a finding that the blog has an alternate purpose of disseminating news. 18
Olesman explained in our meeting that by publishing the Post, she intended to use her social
media presence to expose Erikson’s sexist culture and start a larger conversation about workplace
inequalities and discrimination. She further clarified that her purpose was to educate people and inspire
social change. Olesman also mentioned that she had always intended the “cruel world” category to cover
“hot-button” social issues, however she waited to build up a readership before diving into such
controversial matters. It seems, therefore, that similarly to The County Watchers case, at least one of
Olesman’s main purposes was to disseminate news. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that
Olesman is currently pursuing a degree in Critical Journalism. Even if Olesman wanted to achieve other
social goals (such as inspiring change), it does not change this conclusion.
16 The County Watchers case, supra note 11, at 1271.
17 Too Much Media, at 241–42.
18 The County Watchers case, supra note 11, at 1273.

The Plaintiff might attempt to undermine Olesman’s testimony by suggesting that as a former
employee of Erikson she had a personal motive to publish the post. This claim can be supported by the
fact that the June 15, 2021, Post was and still is the only post under the “cruel world” section. However,
according to our inquiry, there is no factual basis for such a contention. Olesman can testify that she
waited to gain sufficient readership before writing about controversial issues. Indeed, the Website
Analytic Report, shows a gradual increase in its traffic—from 100 hits in November 2020 to 1500 in
June 2021. During our meeting, Olesman mentioned that she is working on her second story, about the
state of discriminatory policing in the tri-state area. I suggest advising Olesman to publish this story in
the “cruel world” section before filing the motion to squash the subpoena.
In summary, despite potential evidential difficulties, it seems that Olesman would be able to
satisfy the second element and show that her intention when publishing the Post was to disseminate
C. The Third Element: Were the Materials Sought Obtained “In The Course of Pursuing
Professional Newsgathering Activities”?
Under Too Much Media, the third required element for establishing a newsperson privilege is
that the materials sought were obtained “in the course of professional newsgathering activities”.
According to the definition in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21a(h) this term includes:
“…any situation, including a social gathering, in which a reporter obtains
information for the purpose of disseminating it to the public, but does not include
any situation in which a reporter intentionally conceals from the source the fact that he
is a reporter, and does not include any situation in which a reporter is an eyewitness to,
or participant in, any act involving physical violence or property damage.”

To satisfy this element, the claimant does not need to provide a detailed account of her specific
activities and investigatory methods. In The County Watchers case, a certification of the blogger that she
operated “in the course of [her] duties as the person who writes, operates and publishes” was sufficient
for its establishment. 19 In addition, in Too Much Media, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the

Shield Law “does not require newspersons to identify themselves as reporters” and does not require
“understanding or agreement of confidentiality”. It also held that “[m]aintaining particular credentials or
adhering to professional standards of journalism—like disclosing conflicts of interest or note-taking—is
also not required by the Shield Law.” 20
In our case, Olesman’s research included: (1) reaching out to the informal “committee” of
Erikson employees which discussed problems with the firm culture; (2) interviewing Ms. Smith—who
told Olesman that Donnelson “had been positively lecherous when they worked together” and that she
was suddenly let go because, according to Hobartson, she wasn’t “Erikson material”; (3) interviewing
Ms. Trudy Campbell—who told her she was let go from Erikson after complaining about similar
harassments, and that Hobartson denied the existence of a problem. These actions seem to satisfy the
third element. As mentioned above, Olesman will not have to give specific details about her actions; a
general certification will be sufficient. In addition, even if Olesman has not presented herself as a
reporter, and even if she has not disclosed that she was a former employee of Erikson, that will not
preclude her from satisfying the third element.
In summary, the third element for establishing the newsperson privilege under New Jersey Shield
law also seems to be satisfied.


In light of the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s broad interpretation and application of the
newsperson privilege, Olesman has good chances of proving she is entitled to its protection, despite
certain difficulties that were discussed above. In that case, according to N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21, Olesman
will not be required to testify or disclose the documents sought in the subpoena regarding her sources
and her research, as well as regarding the editorial process of the Post.

19 The County Watchers case, supra note 11, at 1273.
20 Too Much Media, at 374.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )