Opinion ID: 2328202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Summary Judgment for the Media Defendants:

Text: According to the case law, a public figure may recover damages for defamation by showing that an allegedly defamatory statement about the plaintiff was made with `actual malice,'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 59 (D.C.1993) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 297, 84 S.Ct. 710, 735, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). On the other hand, [t]he basic standard of care in the District of Columbia for media defamation of private individuals, so far as actual damages are involved ... [is] that of negligence. Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78, 87 (D.C. 1980); see also Vereen, 623 A.2d at 1195 (applying a negligence standard to non-media defamation of private person). In this case, the trial judge assumed for purposes of the litigation that Kendrick is a private figure [15] and granted summary judgment to the media defendants. The judge concluded as a matter of law that there was no evidence upon which a jury could base a finding that the media defendants had been negligent. Moreover, the judge concluded that, in light of the precautionary actions the reporters had taken in preparing and broadcasting their news stories, Kendrick had failed to proffer evidence tending to rebut the media defendants' prima facie showing that their reporters had not been negligent in reporting the challenged statements. [16] Kendrick challenges the court's ruling by arguing that the media defendants negligently (1) failed to contact Kendrick before airing the challenged statements by Deputy Chief Wilson, (2) ignored Wilson's lack of credibility reflected in previous news reports casting doubt on Wilson's veracity, and (3) failed to air Kendrick's responses to Wilson's statements in a timely fashion. Kendrick contends that these issues raise jury questions that could not be decided as a matter of law. A. Before we can decide whether there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, we must decide the applicable standard of care i.e., the duty to Kendrickfor which the media defendants are legally accountable. Aside from positing the negligence standard, the trial court did not discuss the standard of care. Because of our role in reviewing a summary judgment order de novo, we canand mustdecide the case by reference to the particular formulation of the standard of care that is applicable to this kind of situation. Kendrick suggests in his brief the applicability of Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia (1985 Supp.) No. 17-2 (DefamationPrivate Plaintiff/Media DefendantGenerally) (hereafter Instruction No. 17-2), which provides in relevant part: Before the plaintiff [INSERT NAME] may recover in this case, you must find that he/she has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she was libeled (slandered) by the defendant and sustained actual injury as a result. Libel (slander) is the negligent publication of a false and defamatory statement about another. Negligent publication is the unreasonable failure, under the circumstances, to take care that the statement made was true. The defendant must exercise the degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons engaged in the same kind of business usually exercise under similar circumstances. (Emphasis added.) [17] We generally confirmed this standard in Moss (while discussing malice in the context of a qualified privilege). We referred to ordinary negligence as a failure to observe an ordinary degree of care in ascertaining the truth of an assertion before publishing it to others, id., 580 A.2d at 1025, i.e., a failure to make a reasonable investigation as to truth, id. at 1026. The media defendants have not questioned this negligence formulation. We apply it here, agreeing with the trial court that the case can properly be resolved by using the standard of care most favorable to Kendrick. It is interesting to note that the media defendants have not suggested that a plaintiff must proffer expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care or to permit a finding of negligence. Nor, on the other hand, has Kendrick suggested that the media defendants must proffer expert testimony to establish their right to judgment as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment. In short, both parties implicitly agree that, in considering their respective burdens on the media defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court shall apply the substance of Instruction No. 17-2 to the facts proffered by each party, in order to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact that would permit a jury to find negligence, as so defined. [18] B. We turn to the question whether there are genuine issues of material fact and, if not, whether the media defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the media defendants submitted sworn affidavits of the three journalists involved in this caseMuse from Channel 4, and Bensen and Becker from Channel 5who detailed the facts outlined in Part I above, emphasizing their efforts to confirm Deputy Chief Wilson's statements, to obtain Kendrick's comments before the February 6 newscast, and to give Kendrick an opportunity to respond to Wilson the next day and thereafter on the air through reported statements and in person. The journalists then added conclusory statements that, in reporting Wilson's statements, they had followed the standards of care customarily applicable to journalists. [19] The facts proffered in the reporters' affidavits are essentially unchallenged; Kendrick for the most part does not dispute the defendants' representations about what happened. Kendrick argues, rather, that in three major respects the reporters' undisputed actions were negligent or, more accurately for purposes of this appeal, present questions of negligence for the jury, not for the court as a matter of law. In this connection, it is important to note that Kendrick, in specifying the defendant's negligence, does not question that the media defendants themselves, through their reporters, can proffer admissible testimony about the nature and degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons engaged in the same kind of businessbroadcast journalismusually exercise under similar circumstances. Instruction No. 17-2. The media defendants, as the parties moving for summary judgment, have the burden of showing a prima facie case that they were not negligent, before the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff as non-moving party. See supra Part II. ( Standard of Review ). We believe, however, that it is useful to focus on Kendrick's contentions and the defendants' responses together, in order to see where the differences are that create the dispute. From that perspective, we shall be able to discern whether the moving defendants have made their required initial showing and, if so, whether Kendrick has rebutted it sufficiently to leave a jury issue. Kendrick argues, first, that the media defendants were negligent in failing to obtain his side of the story before reporting the challenged statements on the air. He asks us to interpret and refine the standard of care by reference to an undated statement of principles by the American Society of Newspapers [20] and to a 1923 American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) Code of Ethics quoted in his brief. [21] Kendrick, however, has not provided source citations for these authorities and, in any event, has not shown by proffered expert testimony or otherwise that these particular standards are customarily followed by journalists. [22] We therefore cannot accept them as authoritative. It is undisputed that the media defendants' reporters made good faith attempts to reach Kendrick before the initial broadcasts. In their affidavits, moreover, all three experienced reporters, testifying under oath, averred that it was customary for reporters to rely upon and report information provided by police officials about the conduct of police authorities, and that in doing so they conducted themselves in accordance with the standards of care customarily observed by journalists. That customary standard of conduct was reflected in their efforts to obtain Kendrick's comments before reporting what Wilson had said. These affidavits are sufficient for a prima facie showing that, customarily, in the exercise of due care, a journalist reporting on statements by a high ranking police official is obliged, before publishing the police statement, to take care that the statement made was true, Instruction No. 17-2, by seeking comment by persons reportedly involved in wrongdoing. But, according to a fair reading of these affidavits, the standard of due care does not preclude a reporter from publishing police statements, otherwise reasonably perceived as accurate, if that reporter has failed, after reasonable diligence, to locate someone criminally implicated by those statements. Kendrick has proffered no credible authority for the proposition that the media's right to publish, and the public's opportunity to learn, about police activity must be cancelled by the unavailability to the press of someone the police accusesat least when the reporters involved, as in this case, have made timely and reasonable efforts to seek comment from that individual before publication. As indicated earlier, the proffered 1923 ASNE Code of Ethics, see supra note 18, cannot be used, absent verification and expert support, to make that case. Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of law that the media defendants have shown that they were not negligent under the circumstances in publishing Wilson's statements before they could reach Kendrick for comment and that appellant has failed to rebut that showing. Second, Kendrick cites three articles published by The Washington Post, before Operation Recovery, which show that Wilson had been officially reprimanded for improprieties during a drug screening program and also had been criticized for his investigation of police leaks in Operation Caribbean Cruise. Kendrick then argues that these articles should have alerted the media defendants to the fact that Wilson was not a reliable source. [23] He further contends that, in light of these articles, the media defendants' failure to investigate further before reporting Wilson's statements amounted to negligence. We note again that reporter Muse averred under oath that [i]t is customary for reporters to rely upon, and report, information provided by police officials about the conduct of police activities. Even if we assume that the media defendants had notice of the three earlier newspaper articles discussing Wilson, these articles did not rise to the level of making Wilson's statements to the press offered in his capacity as the highest ranking police officer in charge of Operation Recoveryinherently suspicious. The press would have to withhold many important stories emanating from police headquarters if reporters had to question, and possibly verify, the credibility of high-ranking police sources because of highly speculative reasons based on earlier, unrelated events. We conclude as a matter of law that Wilson's earlier reprimand and criticism are insufficient to show that the media defendants were negligent in failing to investigate Operation Recovery and Deputy Chief Wilson further before reporting about that police operation on February 6, 1989. Third, Kendrick stresses, as negligence, the fact that Channel 4 waited until February 14, 1989, to broadcast his statement that he had offered the police an apartment at Capitol Terrace to set up an observation post. As a matter of law, we disagree. On February 7, the day after Operation Recovery, Channel 4 broadcast Kendrick's denial of the allegation that he had tipped off drug dealers, as well as his statements that he had cooperated with the police and that the police had been lax in taking action about the drug problems at Capitol Terrace. There is nothing in Kendrick's affidavit or otherwise in the record to show, as Kendrick now claims on appeal, that Kendrick had also told Muse on February 7 that he had offered the police a surveillance unit at Capitol Terrace. Even assuming, however, that Kendrick had told Muse about this offer on February 7, we conclude as a matter of law that Channel 4 could not be deemed actionably negligent for failure to broadcast until February 14 this one detail from Kendrick's statement, since his basic message was timely reported. [24] In sum, Kendrick failed to proffer evidence which, if proved, would be adequate to rebut the media defendants' affidavits that they had followed established standards of care in reporting the challenged statements. [25] Both Muse and Bensen attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to reach Kendrick before the initial broadcasts. Reporters Muse and Bensen, moreover, were careful to double-check with Wilson that the police were still looking into allegations involving Kendrick before broadcasting any such statement. When reporters for the media defendants were able to reach Kendrick the day after the first news reports of Wilson's statements, they reported Kendrick's responses that day. Nor does Kendrick proffer evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the reporters spoke with, and reported the comments of, Capitol Terrace tenants rather than outsiders. Because Kendrick, therefore, proffered no adequate basis for finding that the media defendants acted negligently in reporting Wilson's or the tenant's statements, the trial court did not err in granting the media defendants summary judgment. Affirmed.