Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc.
188 Cal. Rptr. 762, 139 Cal. App. 3d 118 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action for public disclosure of private facts, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the published information was not newsworthy. The standard for newsworthiness is whether the matter is of legitimate public concern, not whether its publication serves a compelling public need.
Facts:
- Toni Ann Diaz was born a male named Antonio Diaz.
- After years of experiencing gender dysphoria, she underwent gender corrective surgery in 1975.
- Diaz kept her surgery and original gender a secret from the public, legally changing her name and updating official records like her driver's license and social security card.
- She enrolled at the College of Alameda and was elected its first female student body president for the 1977-1978 academic year.
- While president, Diaz became involved in a public controversy, accusing college administrators of misusing student funds, which was reported in local newspapers.
- Sidney Jones, a columnist for the Oakland Tribune, learned from confidential sources that Diaz was a transsexual.
- Jones confirmed this information by checking an old police record of a misdemeanor arrest that occurred before Diaz's surgery, under her birth name, Antonio Diaz.
- On March 26, 1978, Jones' column in the Oakland Tribune publicly revealed that Diaz was born a man and was a transsexual.
Procedural Posture:
- Toni Ann Diaz sued the Oakland Tribune, Inc., and Sidney Jones in a California trial court for invasion of privacy.
- A jury returned a special verdict in favor of Diaz, awarding her $250,000 in compensatory damages and $525,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment for Diaz based on the jury's verdict.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- The defendants, Oakland Tribune, Inc., and Sidney Jones, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In an invasion of privacy action for the public disclosure of private facts, does the plaintiff bear the burden of proving that the published information is not newsworthy?
Opinions:
Majority - Barry-Deal, J.
Yes. A plaintiff in a public disclosure of private facts case must prove the published information was not newsworthy in order to overcome the First Amendment's protection of the press. The court found two prejudicial instructional errors by the trial court requiring reversal. First, the trial court improperly placed the burden on the defendants to prove newsworthiness; the court held that to protect freedom of the press and prevent a chilling effect, the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving non-newsworthiness, akin to the malice standard in defamation law. Second, the trial court wrongly instructed the jury that a right to privacy can only be abridged by a 'compelling public need,' a standard that applies to government intrusion, not to publications by the press, for which the standard is 'legitimate public concern.'
Concurring - Feinberg, J.
Yes. The author concurred with the judgment to reverse the trial court's decision based on the instructional errors. However, the author would not have addressed the issues of malice and the excessiveness of the damage awards as they were not necessary to decide the case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens First Amendment protections for the press against invasion of privacy claims for public disclosure of private facts. By shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate that a story is not newsworthy, the court aligns the procedural safeguards in privacy torts with those established for defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan. This standard makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail and is intended to prevent media self-censorship, thereby giving the press more 'breathing space' to report on matters of public interest, even if they involve sensitive personal information.
Unlock the full brief for Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc.