Filmmaker Ken Burns will not have to turn over footage from his documentary on the 'Central Park Five' to New York officials who sued him for the original interviews, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. 

The original interviews from the jogger rape case were requested as important in connection to a $250 million federal lawsuit filed by the 'Central Park five' after their sentences were vacated nine years ago. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis ruled that the city did not show enough concern to overtake the "precious rights of freedom of speech and the press." Ellis also rejected arguments made that Florentine Films and Ken Burns were not independent filmmakers, but that they "established its independence in the making of the film" and may claim the privilege.

The Central Park five case dates back to April 1989 when a 28-year-old investment banker was attacked while she was jogging in the park and later found beaten and rapped. She was then in a coma for 12 days and sustained permanent injuries. The men were later exonerated when an already encarcerated man confessed to the crime and DNA evidence supported his claim.

While journalistic integrity is important, a city lawyer said, "we firmly believe it did not apply here. This film is a one-sided advocacy piece that depicts the plaintiffs' version of events as undisputed fact. It is our view that we should be able to view the complete interviews, not just those portions that the filmmakers chose to include," the lawyer said in a statement. 

Burns said he and his filmmakers are "grateful for this important decision," and that the view of the filmmakers was not "a one-sided advocacy piece" as the lawyer claimed. "This adds a layer of important protection to journalists and filmmakers everywhere. By stating this view, we have not forfeited our journalistic integrity any more than any author or columnist or filmmaker who espouses a point-of-view about a story he or she is reporting," he wrote. 

Judge Ellis also ruled against New York officials because they did not make suitable claims that the evidence from the filmmaker's interviews were significanty relevant and failed to adequately demonstrate that they could not obtain these materials from another source.