Russell Doty, a former candidate for local political office in Montana, subpoenaed The Billings Gazette, seeking identifying information for three anonymous individuals who posted comments to an article on the newspaper's website in 2008 using the pseudonyms "CutiePie," "Always, wondering," and "High Plains Drifter."  Doty issued the subpoena in connection with a defamation lawsuit against his former political rival, Brad Molnar, in which he alleged that Molnar made false statements in 2004 concerning Doty's qualifications to run for office. 

Doty alleged that Molnar was one of the pseudonymous posters (Molnar denied this in a deposition), and that the other posters might serve as witnesses about the harm to his reputation caused by Molnar's 2004 statements.  The Billings Gazette filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that Montanta's shield law protected it from having to disclose the commenters' IP and email addresses. 

On September 3, 2008, Judge Todd Baugh of Montana's 13th Judicial District granted the motion to quash, ruling that Montana's shield law protected the commenters' identifying information.  Montana's shield law says that a news organization or any person "connected with or employed by [a news organization] for the purpose of gathering, writing, editing, or disseminating news” may not be required to "disclose any information obtained or prepared or the source of that information . . . if the information was gathered, received, or processed in the course of [a reporter's] employment or [a news organization's] business."  Mont. Code § 26-1-902(1).  Judge Baugh agreed with the Gazette's argument that this language is broad enough to encompass data gathered when a newspaper website user posts a comment. 

In September 2008, an Oregon state judge ruled that Oregon's media shield law, found at Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 44.510 to 44.540, protected the identity of anonymous commenters who posted allegedly defamatory statements on The Portland Mercury and Willamette Week websites.

According to the Portland Mercury, staff writer Amy Ruiz wrote a post in January 2008 about Portland mayoral candidate Sho Dozono.  In the comments section, a site user going by "Ronald" posted negative comments about Dozono's ties to a local businessman, Terry Beard.  The same commenter allegedly posted similar statements on the Willamette Week site. Proceeding anonymously, Beard filed a lawsuit against "Ronald" and other anonymous commenters and served a subpoena on The Portland Mercury and Williamette Week, seeking documents and records identifying them. When the two newspapers failed to produce responsive documents, Beard moved to compel them to produce documents identifying the anonymous commenters. The two newspapers teamed up to oppose the discovery request and won. 

Interestingly, Judge James E. Redman of Clackamas County Court did not treat the anonymous commenters as confidential sources.  Section 44.520(a) of the Oregon Revised Statutes protects from disclosure "[t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public." Instead, the court relied on section 44.520(b), which protects "[a]ny unpublished information obtained or prepared by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public."  Section 44.510(1) defines "information" as including "any written, oral, pictorial or electronically recorded news or other data." The court characterized "Ronald's" IP address as data.

On the question of whether the newspapers obtained this data in the course of newsgathering, Judge Redman drew a line based on the relevance of the blog comment to the post it's attached to:

If the comment had been totally unrelated to the blog post, then the argument could be made that the Portland Mercury did not receive it in the "course of gathering, receiving, or processing information for any medium of communication to the public." (source)

Concluding that the IP address fit within the shield law's "broad statutory language," the court denied Beard's motion to compel. Presumably, Beard will not be able to pursue the underlying lawsuit without the identity of the anonymous commenters.

An Illinois grand jury subpoenaed The Alton Telegraph newspaper in September 2008, seeking the  names, addresses and IP addresses of readers who posted comments to TheTelegraph website under five pseudonyms. The subpoena required that the newspaper's keeper of records appear before the grand jury with the requested records on October 2, 2008. 

According to one press account, the state's attorney seeks this information in connection with a murder investigation that does not involve The Alton Telegraph.  The state believes that one of the anonymous commenters has information about past criminal activity on the part of the subject of the investigation.

The newspaper moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the Illinois reporter's shield law protects the identities of the anonymous commenters as "sources."  It also moved to postpone the return date of the subpoena, apparently successfully.  As of October 17, 2008, the court had not ruled on the Alton Telegraph's challenge.

Update:

5/15/09 - According to Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, the court ruled that the Alton Telegraph must turn over the identities of two of the posters.  As to the other three posters, the court ruled that the paper need not disclose their identities because what they had written was irrelevant to the investigation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations subpoenaed video blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf for information regarding a political demonstration that resulted in harm to a police officer. The FBI sought the identities of protestors who appeared in Wolf's video recording of the protest, which Wolf claimed was an attempt by the government to use a journalist (himself) as an investigative tool.

On July 8, 2005, Wolf filmed a San Francisco demonstration against the G8 summit in Scotland. During the course of the protest, a San Francisco police officer was injured, and protestors allegedly damaged a police car. Wolf published an edited version of the video on independant news site Indybay and also sold footage to local TV station KRON.

As part of an investigation into the officer's injury, the FBI subpoenaed Wolf to appear in front of a federal grand jury. The subpoena asked Wolf to produce the full video and any other documentation regarding the protest. The subpoena also sought information regarding the identities of individuals who appeared in the video.

Wolf filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California's journalist shield law. The North District of California denied Wolf's motion to quash. The court focused on federal journalist protections and held that Wolf was required to comply with the subpoena because he had not demonstrated that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith.

After Wolf again refused to comply with the subpoena, the court ordered him to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. Wolf again asserted his First Amendment rights, as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wolf's arguments were supported by amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The court rejected Wolf's and the amici's arguments on grounds similar to those in its denial of Wolf's motion to quash. It held Wolf in contempt and ordered that he be confined until he complied with the subpoena. Wolf and his lawyers appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit granted a motion allowing Wolf to leave prison on bail. However, the court soon after revoked bail persuant to a motion by the FBI. The court then affirmed the district court's contempt ruling and ordered Wolf to testify and reveal the unpubished portions fo the tape. The 9th Circuit's decision agreed with the district court's holding that Wolf could not legitimately refuse to comply with the subpoena without demonstrating that the grand jury was conducted in bad faith.

The FBI and Wolf ultimately settled the case. Wolf published the full version of the video online and filed a DVD copy with the court. In return, he was released from prison and did not have to testify in front of the grand jury. Wolf had served 226 days in prison, the longest term ever served by a journalist for refusing to disclose unpublished source material.

Independent videographer Tim Lewis refused to comply with a Lane County, Oregon, grand jury subpoena for video he filmed of a May 30, 2008, incident where police tasered Ian Van Ornum, a student protester.  Lewis argued that Oregon's reporter shield law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 44.520,  protects him from compelled disclosure of his newsgathering materials.

The grand jury planned to examine the video to determine whether Van Ornum, or any other people attending the anti-pesticide protest he was attending, should face criminal charges.  Lewis, who edited and posted the video to YouTube, said the tape contained very little information that would be useful to the grand jury, as he didn't begin to record events until after Van Ornum had been tasered. Nonetheless, he refused to surrender the tape because he "can't set a precedent by giving it to them," according to The Register-Guard.

Update:

7/15/2008 - After Lewis, with aid from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, filed documents in court invoking the shield law, the District Attorney's office withdrew the subpoena, reports The Register Guard.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House Assistant, and his wife Jacqueline sued Matt Drudge, publisher of The Drudge Report, and America Online Inc. over statements Drudge published in August 1997. According to the complaint, Drudge falsely accused Blumenthal of engaging in spousal abuse.

On August 10, 1997, Drudge transmitted the report from Los Angeles, California by email to his direct subscribers and posted the information about Blumenthal on AOL, which was hosting the Drudge Report at the time. After receiving a letter from plaintiffs' counsel on August 11, 1997, Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report posted on AOL and emailed to his subscribers. Drudge later publicly apologized to the Blumenthals, but they still filed a defamation lawsuit on August 27, 1997.

In October 1997, Drudge and AOL filed motions for summary judgment. On April 22, 1998, the court refused to dismiss the case against Drudge, finding that the court had personal jurisdiction over him, but granted AOL's motion on the basis that AOL was immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998).

During a discovery dispute in April 1999, the federal district court applied the constitutional reporter's privilege to Drudge and denied Blumenthal access to information about Drudge's sources. See Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 246, 244-45 (D.D.C. 1999). 

Blumenthal dropped his lawsuit and eventually reached a settlement with Drudge in early 2001. According to Wikipedia, "the settlement involv[ed] a small payment to Drudge over having missed a deposition. In his book, The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal claimed he was forced to settle because he could no longer financially afford the suit."

On May 9, 2001, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal.