Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc.
21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663, 34 Cal. 4th 679, 101 P.3d 552 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution bars an invasion of privacy claim against a media defendant for the publication of truthful information obtained from public official records of a criminal proceeding, regardless of the passage of time or the subject's subsequent rehabilitation.
Facts:
- In 1988, an automobile salesman was murdered by hired assassins.
- A prominent automobile dealer was convicted of masterminding the murder, and the plaintiff, who worked as the dealer's assistant manager, was implicated.
- In 1992, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder for hire.
- The plaintiff served a three-year prison sentence.
- After his release from prison, the plaintiff led an obscure, productive, and lawful life, becoming a respected member of his community.
- In 2001, more than a dozen years after the crime, the defendant television companies produced and aired a documentary about the murder.
- The documentary included details about the plaintiff's guilty plea and showed his photograph, both of which were obtained from public official records related to his 1992 conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant television companies in a state trial court for defamation and invasion of privacy.
- Defendants filed a demurrer to both claims and a special anti-SLAPP motion to strike the invasion of privacy claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer to the defamation claim but overruled the demurrer to the invasion of privacy claim.
- The trial court also denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, finding the plaintiff's claim was barred by the First Amendment.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
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 protect a media defendant from tort liability for invasion of privacy when it publishes truthful information about a person's past criminal conviction obtained from public court records, even if many years have passed and the person has since led a lawful, obscure life?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
Yes. The First Amendment bars tort liability for publishing truthful information obtained from public court records. The court held that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn is controlling. Cox established that states may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection because of the press's vital role in reporting on the operations of government. Subsequent Supreme Court cases have affirmed this principle, holding that the state's interest in protecting the anonymity of rehabilitated former criminals does not qualify as an 'interest of the highest order' sufficient to overcome this First Amendment protection. The court rejected the argument that the passage of time diminishes this constitutional protection, stating that the rationale in Cox applies to the nature of public records themselves, not their age. Therefore, the prior California Supreme Court decision in Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., which allowed such liability, is overruled to the extent it conflicts with this holding.
Analysis:
This decision aligns California's privacy tort law with the strong First Amendment protections articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn. It establishes a bright-line rule that immunizes the media from liability for publishing truthful information sourced from public court records, effectively eliminating the 'passage of time' or 'rehabilitation' arguments in such cases. By overruling Briscoe, the court significantly curtails the 'publication of private facts' tort, prioritizing the public's right to information about governmental proceedings over an individual's interest in leaving their past behind. This provides greater certainty for journalists and documentarians reporting on historical crimes using public records.
