Brady Moe

JRM 529
11/11/14

Case Study #3

If the press is viewed as an essential tool of a functioning democracy, then the ability of
the press to attain valuable and reliable information is key in their effort to aid democratic
institutions. Further, the degree to which any member of the press is able to attain this
information is dependent on their news sources, which provide information that the journalist
may otherwise be unable to acquire. However, this can create a conflict between a journalists
pursuit of news and knowledge, and between the sources wish to remain anonymous in the news
process. This can be seen in the hypothetical case between Beth Ehlers of the Omaha WorldHerald and a news source of hers that wished to remain anonymous. While publishing a story
regarding a school principals potential inappropriate relations with a student, Ehlers used a
teacher at the school as a source. The teacher, however, wanted anonymity, which he believes he
was given by Ehlers. After publication of the story, the source was fired, and now the source is
suing Ehlers for identifying him in the story and for breaking their promise of confidentiality.
This paper will examine the case by the defense for a summary judgment, the arguments from
both the prosecution and the defense, and how I believe the case should ultimately be ruled.
Before even determining the trial on merits, the defense representing Ehlers has filed for
a summary judgment. The defense hopes to dismiss the case on the grounds that Ehlers did not
promise confidentiality to her source and that Ehlers did not identify her source in her article.
However, the motion for summary judgment would fail for two different reasons. First, if there

is any dispute regarding facts (Pember and Calvert, 214), then a court must rule in favor of the
plaintiff and dismiss the motion for summary judgment. In this case, there are multiple disputes
of fact between the plaintiff and defendant: whether Ehlers promised her source confidentiality,
whether Ehlers was negligent and broke her promise of confidentiality, and whether Ehlers
identified her source in her article. Second, summary judgment is issued when a court determines
that, even when viewing the case in the most favorable way for the plaintiff, no reasonable juror
could rule in favor of the plaintiff. While this is a far more subjective issue to consider, it would
still lead to a dismissal of summary judgment. A reasonable juror could look at the issues and
determine that Ehlers did indeed promise confidentiality to her source and, further, could
conclude that Ehlers identified her source in her article, leading to her sources termination.
Given the criteria for summary judgment, the defenses motion for it would fail.
With the case moving to a trial, the decisive issue in the case is whether promissory
estoppel applies in the case. Promissory estoppels occurs when someone fails to keep a promise
that he or she had made (Pember and Calvert, 400). There are four criteria to determine whether
the plaintiff is entitle to damages under promissory estoppel: that the defendant made a clear
promise to the plaintiff, that the defendant intended to induce the plaintiffs actions with the
promise, that the plaintiff acted on the basis of that promise, and that the promise is enforced by
the court in the interests of the plaintiff. Of all four criteria, the plaintiff would have the strongest
arguments on the third and fourth criteria. On the third point, given the sources hesitancy to give
information without a promise of confidentiality, it seems likely that he acted with the belief that
he did indeed have the promise of confidentiality. On the fourth point, the incidental effects of a
ruling in favor of the plaintiff on the media would not violate any First Amendment privileges
defendant could try to claim. Similar to Cohen v. Cowles Media, Inc., when generally applicable

laws are violated by the press that would normally be upheld, the court must rule in favor of
justice for the plaintiff.
It appears that two of the four parameters for promissory estoppel have been met.
However, I do not believe that defendant has established clearly enough the first two
requirements. On the first point regarding a clear and definite promise of confidentiality, the
evidence does not point to Ehlers providing a definite promise of confidentiality. All the record
indicates is that Ehlers promised that she would make every effort to maintain his
confidentiality, not that she guaranteed him confidentiality. Though the source claims that he
has affidavits and evidence supporting his claim, this would only seem to support the notion that
he believed that she gave him confidentiality, not that she actually promised it. Moreover, even if
Ehlers had made a promise of confidentiality with her source, it doesnt appear that she wouldve
broken her promise. Though defense claims that their client was identified with the phrase longtime school science teacher, there were, in fact, multiple science teachers to whom that title
could have referred to. As such, Ehlers did not identify her source in her article. On the second
point regarding the defendant intending to induce plaintiffs action with a promise, this one is not
met either. As has already been shown, the defendant did not provide a definite promise in the
first place, Moreover, since Ehlers sought multiple sources to corroborate her story, it can
reasonably be asserted that she did not attempt to induce anyones actions, but merely sought
them as a supplement to her other sources. Since two of the four criteria of promissory estoppel
have not been sufficiently met, I would rule in favor of the plaintiff.
In the pursuit of truth and news, unintended consequences can occur. In this case, a
source lost their job by providing information to a journalist. However, given the facts of the

case, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a legal remedy. No specific promise of
confidentiality was given, and thus, Ehlers succeeds in her case.