At 2:08 a.m. on Friday, December 29, 2006, North- west Herald Newspapers received via e-mail the Lake in the Hills police department "Daily Bul- letin," which reported that Carolene Eubanks had been charged with theft and obstruction of jus- tice. As it normally does, the newspaper placed the information from the report in an article and then placed the article in line for publication in the upcoming issue of the paper. The article was even- tually printed before 6 a.m. on January 2, 2007, and appeared in the newspaper on the same date.

The Lake in the Hills police department had sent a second e-mail, on December 29 at 10:25 p.m., in which it said to remove the name Carolene Eubanks and replace it with the name Barbara Bradshaw.The employee who posted the article had already gone home, and because it was a long holiday weekend, and no one was in the office when the second e-mail arrived, it wasn't read until January 2, 2007, at 10:17 a.m.

Consequently, the January 2 edition of the newspaper included the article indicating that Carolene Eubanks had been arrested and charged with theft and attempted obstruction of justice. The newspaper published a retraction of the article in its January 3 paper, stating that Eubanks was not the one charged with those crimes.

On June 15, 2007, Eubanks filed her complaint against Northwest Herald for defamation and false- light invasion of privacy based on the January 2 publication. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on its exer- cise of a privilege. The plaintiff appealed. What privilege do you think the court relied on? What do you think the outcome of the appeal was and why? [Eubanks v. Northwest Herald Newspapers, 397 Ill. App. 3d 746, 922 N.E.2d 1196 (2010).