Trump v. O'BRIEN
29 A.3d 1090, 422 N.J. Super. 540 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a public figure to prevail in a defamation claim, they must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. An author's reliance on confidential sources does not constitute actual malice if the author has a reasonable basis for their credibility, such as consistency and prior verified information, especially when the public figure's own statements on the matter are inconsistent and difficult to verify.
Facts:
- Financial reporter Timothy O'Brien had a history of writing about Donald Trump, including his casinos and finances.
- While researching for his book 'TrumpNation,' O'Brien re-interviewed three confidential sources with direct knowledge of Trump's finances who he had used for a prior New York Times article.
- These sources, who had previously provided O'Brien with other verifiable information, estimated Trump's net worth to be between $150 million and $250 million.
- During the research process, Trump himself provided O'Brien with varying estimates of his own net worth, ranging from $1.7 billion to over $6 billion, and stated in a deposition that his net worth assessment fluctuates with his 'own feelings'.
- Financial documents provided by Trump to O'Brien were unaudited and included disclaimers from accountants stating they did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles and that users 'might reach different conclusions' if they did.
- O'Brien's book, 'TrumpNation,' was published including the sources' $150-$250 million estimate, while also noting the difficulty in assessing Trump's true wealth and including Trump's dismissal of the lower figure as 'naysaying'.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald J. Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against Timothy O'Brien and his publishers in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (the trial court).
- During discovery, the trial court ordered O'Brien to reveal the identities of his confidential sources.
- On appeal of the discovery order, the Superior Court, Appellate Division reversed, holding the sources were protected by the state's newsperson's privilege (shield law).
- The case returned to the trial court, where defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Trump had failed to show clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.
- The trial court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Trump's case.
- Trump, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, against O'Brien et al. as respondents.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public figure plaintiff establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice when an author publishes an estimate of the plaintiff's net worth from confidential sources that is significantly lower than the plaintiff's own claims, where the author had reason to trust the sources and the plaintiff's own financial claims were unverifiable and fluctuated widely?
Opinions:
Majority - Payne, J.A.D.
No. A public figure plaintiff does not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice under these circumstances. To survive summary judgment, Donald Trump was required to produce clear and convincing evidence that Timothy O'Brien published the statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The court found no such evidence. O'Brien's reliance on his three confidential sources was not reckless because their estimates were consistent with each other, and they had previously provided other reliable, independently verifiable information. Furthermore, O'Brien did not entertain 'serious doubts' about the sources' claims, especially given that Trump's own estimates of his net worth were wildly inconsistent and unsupported by audited financial statements. O'Brien's failure to uncover the 'truth' from the materials Trump provided amounts, at most, to negligence, which is insufficient to prove actual malice. Finally, including Trump's denial of the low estimate in the book weighs against a finding of malice.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the high constitutional barrier that the 'actual malice' standard creates for public figures in defamation cases. It provides significant protection to journalists reporting on complex financial matters, especially when their subjects are inconsistent or provide unverifiable information. The court's analysis emphasizes that reliance on well-vetted, consistent confidential sources is not 'reckless disregard,' even in the face of vehement denials from the subject. The ruling effectively insulates journalists from liability when they express skepticism about a public figure's self-reported wealth, provided they do not act with a subjective awareness of probable falsity.
