Finley v. Kelly
384 F.Supp.3d 898 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Voluntarily sending electronic messages to another person waives any reasonable expectation of privacy for the purpose of an intrusion upon seclusion claim. However, the recipient's subsequent distribution of defamatory statements and private facts from those messages to a small group of the sender's family and friends can satisfy the publication element for defamation and public disclosure of private facts claims.
Facts:
- Roger Finley and Robyn Kelly, who dated in high school, reconnected on Facebook decades later and met in person in January 2013 and January 2014.
- Following their second meeting, Roger and Robyn corresponded for several months in 2014, discussing the possibility of rekindling their relationship.
- In September 2014, Roger informed Robyn he no longer wished to communicate with her.
- Beginning in December 2014, Robyn used a fake Facebook account to send Roger's private messages to his wife, Kerry Finley.
- After being blocked by Kerry, Robyn sent hundreds of emails to Roger's work email address from late 2014 to the spring of 2018, containing threats and insults against both Roger and Kerry.
- Robyn created a 79-page 'Document' containing private messages, photos, and a narrative describing Roger as, among other things, a 'sociopath,' 'abuser,' and 'drunk,' and alleging the Finleys had an 'abusive relationship.'
- Using a fake Facebook account, Robyn sent the Document to at least 18 individuals, including members of the Finleys' family and their personal friends.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger and Kerry Finley filed suit against Robyn Kelly in Tennessee state court.
- Kelly removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
- Kelly filed an initial motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer venue.
- The Finleys filed a First Amended Complaint.
- In response to the amended complaint, Kelly filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 complaint alleging that an individual sent hundreds of harassing emails and published a 79-page document containing private messages and defamatory statements to the plaintiffs' family and friends state plausible claims for defamation, public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress under Tennessee law?
Opinions:
Majority - Crenshaw, Jr., J.
No as to the intrusion upon seclusion and emotional distress claims; Yes as to the defamation and public disclosure of private facts claims. The complaint states plausible claims for defamation and public disclosure of private facts, but fails to state plausible claims for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), or negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The defamation claim survives because statements calling someone a 'stalker,' 'sociopath,' or 'drunk' are capable of a defamatory meaning and are not necessarily mere hyperbole or opinion. The public disclosure of private facts claim survives because, even though the document was sent to a small group of 18 people, disclosure to individuals with a 'special relationship' to the plaintiff, such as family and friends, can satisfy the publicity element. However, the intrusion upon seclusion claim fails because Roger had no reasonable expectation of privacy in messages he voluntarily sent to Robyn; by sending them, he consented to her receiving the information. The IIED and NIED claims fail because Robyn's conduct, while 'tiresome, bothersome and nettlesome,' did not rise to the 'exacting standard' of 'outrageous' conduct required under Tennessee law, which must be 'atrocious' and 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of traditional torts to modern electronic communication and online harassment. It demonstrates that the high bar for emotional distress claims in Tennessee remains difficult to meet, even with allegations of a years-long campaign of harassment. Significantly, the court's analysis of the public disclosure claim suggests a willingness to adapt the 'publicity' element to the realities of social media, where targeted dissemination to a small, socially-connected group can be as damaging as a wider broadcast. This case establishes a clear precedent that voluntarily sending a communication relinquishes a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against the recipient.
Unlock the full brief for Finley v. Kelly