Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz
793 F.Supp.2d 311, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67259, 79 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1221 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's protection for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information on matters of public concern does not extend to shield a party from liability for tortious or otherwise unlawful conduct committed to acquire that information.
Facts:
- Sometime prior to April 2008, Paul David Gaubatz, his son Chris Gaubatz, and the Center for Security Policy (CSP) planned to have Chris Gaubatz infiltrate the offices of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network (CAIR-AN).
- In April 2008, Chris Gaubatz used an assumed name and made false representations about his background and intentions to secure an internship with CAIR-AN.
- As a condition of his internship, Chris Gaubatz signed a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with CAIR-AN, promising not to disclose or divulge confidential information.
- During his internship, which lasted until August 2008, Chris Gaubatz, without authorization, physically removed more than 12,000 internal documents from CAIR-AN's offices.
- Chris Gaubatz also used a concealed device to make audio and video recordings of conversations involving CAIR-AN employees without their consent.
- He obtained electronic documents by accessing CAIR-AN's computer systems with usernames and passwords that were not assigned to him.
- Chris Gaubatz delivered the documents and recordings to Paul David Gaubatz and CSP.
- The defendants subsequently published the obtained materials on a blog and in a book titled 'Muslim Mafia', which detailed the infiltration as a 'counterintelligence operation'.
Procedural Posture:
- The Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network (CAIR-AN) filed a complaint against Paul and Chris Gaubatz in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal trial court).
- CAIR-AN moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from using or disseminating the materials they obtained.
- The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary injunction by consent of the parties.
- The Gaubatz Defendants, the defendants in the trial court, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The Plaintiffs, CAIR-AN and CAIR-F, filed two subsequent motions to amend their complaint to add a plaintiff, add defendants, and assert additional legal claims.
- The trial court is now ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motions to amend.
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 the First Amendment bar civil claims for trespass, conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when the claims are based on the defendants' direct participation in the unlawful acquisition of information, even if that information was later published on a matter of public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Kollar-Kotelly
No. The First Amendment does not bar civil claims arising from the unlawful acquisition of information. The constitutional protections for publishing truthful information apply only when the publisher has lawfully acquired it. The Supreme Court's decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, which protected a publisher who played no part in an illegal interception, is distinguishable because here, the plaintiffs allege that the Gaubatz Defendants were directly involved in the unlawful acts used to obtain the materials. The First Amendment does not grant the press a license to violate generally applicable laws. While Plaintiffs' claims for reputational harm might be limited, their claims for damages arising from the unlawful acquisition itself can proceed. Specifically, the court denied dismissal of the claims for trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violation of the Stored Communications Act, finding the allegations plausible. However, the court granted dismissal of the conversion claim as it pertained to electronic data, reasoning that merely copying files without depriving the owner of their use does not constitute the 'serious interference' required for conversion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical legal distinction between the act of publishing information and the methods used to acquire it. It clarifies that the First Amendment does not create a 'newsgathering privilege' that immunizes journalists or investigators from liability for committing torts or crimes. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for cases where undercover tactics involve trespass, misrepresentation, or breach of duties of loyalty and confidentiality. By allowing most of CAIR-AN's claims to proceed, the court affirmed that generally applicable laws apply to everyone, and the public interest value of the information obtained does not excuse the illegality of the methods used to get it.
