“This reply is dripping… with sarcasm,” Judge Diane Cannon said to a flummoxed Richard O’Brien of Sidley & Austin. Cannon was referring to a reply co-written by O’Brien, who is representing Northwestern and one of its professors as third parties to a wrongful-conviction allegation by the university's Medill Innocence Project.

“It’s not the law, it’s not the facts, it’s sarcasm," Cannon exclaimed. "You are to comment on the law and the facts of this case."

The hearing itself, which was to include oral arguments over whether to allow prosecutors access to students' grades and e-mails, was postponed to give Northwestern time to respond to a prosecutors’ supplementary response submitted at the last minute.

O’Brien, in an impromptu press conference outside the courtroom, expressed disappointment that the hearing didn’t proceed. He declined to comment on the judge's excoriation, other than to say, "I filed the paper as I’ve filed thousands of papers over 30 years.”

The court gave O'Brien until Jan. 11 to respond to the state's attorney's reply. It's expected that then she will set another date for the oral argument on the motion to quash the subpoena.

Northwestern’s involvement is as a third party in the conviction of Anthony McKinney, a Chicago man serving life in prison for the murder of a security guard. Armed with evidence from the Medill Innocence Project, McKinney’s attorneys petitioned the court to reconsider the conviction. Judge Cannon ruled in July that there was sufficient evidence for the post-conviction petition to be considered.

In the past the Innocence Project has turned up evidence that resulted in overturning the convictions of 11 men, five of them on death row.

The prosecutor’s office, led by Anita Alvarez, who last year was elected Cook County state’s attorney, subpoenaed Northwestern University Professor David Protess of the Medill School to produce course descriptions, unpublished course material, reimbursements for student expenses, e-mail communications, and the grades of eight students who investigated the case and turned their findings over to the state's attorney's office in 2006. Nine reporting teams from Medill had worked on the case over three and a half years, from 2003 to 2006.

Two of the former students whose grades were requested, Evan Benn and Nicole Lapin, were in court Tuesday. A third, Rachel Pikelny, whose records were not requested but who contributed to the reporting in the McKinney case, was also present.

Protess maintained Tuesday that he will not produce the materials even if he is held in contempt of court and put in jail. He contends they are protected by federal law.

“I will not turn over to the law any private information and unpublished materials that I possess,” Protess told reporters and cameras in the courthouse lobby after the hearing. “I will not, regardless of the consequences.”

Alvarez’s office did not respond to requests for comment, though on Monday evening she had told the Chicago Headline Club, "All will be revealed after [Tuesday's] hearing."

The unprecedented attempt by prosecutors to get journalism students' records has set off a national media frenzy, with stories in The New York Times, Time and USA Today, and reports on ABC News and CNN.

In attendance at Tuesday's hearing were reporters from ABC-7, Fox Chicago, Chicago Public Radio, Chicago Tribune, The National Law Journal and Law Bulletin, and other media outlets.

Before the hearing, judge Cannon asked O’Brien who had written a certain reply to the prosecution team’s request to deny Northwestern’s attempt to stifle prosecutors.

O’Brien said that it was a collaboration between himself and Linda Friedlieb, both of Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin LLP.

“If you want to editorialize… you have to put your name on it,” said Cannon, saying the document included no lawyer's name, contrary to court document requirements.

A copy of the 15-page document, however, shows that page 14 immediately following the argument lists Friedlieb and O’Brien as the attorneys for Northwestern and Protess, and Friedlieb’s signature.

Judge Cannon’s office did not reply to a query about whether she had that page.

The reply that incurred the judge’s wrath criticized the state’s attorney’s office for not understanding the requirements of the Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act, which gives reporters protection from revealing their notes and sources.

“The State nonsensically argues that it has not requested ‘student records’ because it has only sought the student reporters’ grades,” reads one of the contentious sentences in Friedlieb's and O’Brien’s reply.

Prosecutors contend that the students and Protess do not deserve protection under the act in part because they were not engaged in newsgathering, according to court documents.