M. G. v. Time Warner, Inc.
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504, 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1883 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Publishing an individual's photograph in a manner that connects them to a sensitive and newsworthy event may constitute an invasion of privacy for public disclosure of private facts, particularly when the individuals' specific identities are not in themselves newsworthy and the disclosure is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- Norman Watson managed a Little League team in Highland, California, in 1996 and 1997.
- Plaintiffs, who include eight former players and two assistant coaches, were members of Watson's team.
- In September 1997, it was discovered that Watson had a long history of sexually abusing children he coached.
- Watson pleaded guilty in April 1998 to 39 counts of lewd acts with children.
- In September 1999, Sports Illustrated and the HBO program Real Sports published stories on child molestation in youth sports, using Watson as a central example.
- Both publications used a 1997 team photograph that included all the plaintiffs, clearly showing their faces.
- The photograph was captioned to identify Watson and connect him to his crimes, thereby linking all individuals in the photo to the molestation scandal.
- Four of the player-plaintiffs had been molested by Watson, while four had not.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Time Warner in a California trial court for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress.
- Time Warner filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16).
- The trial court denied Time Warner's motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claims.
- Time Warner, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of the motion to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District. The plaintiffs are the appellees.
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 publishing a team photograph to illustrate a story about a child-molesting coach, thereby linking identifiable team members to the scandal, give rise to a viable claim for invasion of privacy based on the public disclosure of private facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaut, J.
Yes. Publishing a team photograph that links identifiable individuals to a sensitive scandal can constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. The court reasoned that while the general topic of child molestation in youth sports is newsworthy, the specific identities of the team members were a private fact. The right to privacy is not about total secrecy, but the right to 'define one’s circle of intimacy.' The court found that linking these individuals, particularly the minors, to a story about sexual molestation by publishing their unobscured faces was not essential to the story and lacked sufficient newsworthiness to overcome their privacy interests. The court rejected Time Warner's justification that the photo showed 'any child' could be at risk, calling the assertion 'hollow.' It concluded that a trier of fact could find the publication was not a matter of legitimate public concern, especially given public policy protecting the identities of minors and sex crime victims. The court also found a viable 'false light' claim for the plaintiffs who were not victims, as the publications could reasonably imply they were.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the newsworthiness defense in privacy torts, especially concerning media publications involving minors. It establishes that a bright line exists between a newsworthy topic and the private, identifying details of individuals involuntarily involved in that topic. The court's analysis curtails broad editorial discretion by requiring a strong, logical nexus between the information revealed and the public interest served. This precedent serves as a powerful caution to media outlets that they cannot use identifiable images of private citizens, especially children, as mere illustrations for sensitive stories without facing potential liability for invasion of privacy.
Unlock the full brief for M. G. v. Time Warner, Inc.