Safari Club Int'l v. Lawrence Rudolph
845 F.3d 1250 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person may have an objectively reasonable expectation that a conversation is confidential and not being recorded, even when that conversation occurs in a public place. The determination of whether a communication is 'confidential' under California law is a fact-specific inquiry that considers the totality of the circumstances, rather than a per se rule based on location.
Facts:
- Dr. Lawrence P. Rudolph, a former president of Safari Club International (SCI), was expelled from the organization following accusations of misconduct.
- Rudolph filed lawsuits against SCI and its current president, John Whipple, for defamation.
- While the litigation was ongoing, Rudolph invited Whipple, who still considered Rudolph a friend, to a five-hour lunch at a public restaurant.
- During the lunch, Rudolph steered the conversation toward the pending litigation.
- Whipple stated that he and Rudolph kept their voices low and would pause their conversation about substantive matters whenever restaurant staff or other patrons approached their table.
- Unbeknownst to Whipple, Rudolph secretly audio and video recorded their entire conversation.
- Rudolph later edited the recording and posted a video of the conversation on YouTube, targeting it toward SCI members.
Procedural Posture:
- SCI and Whipple sued Rudolph in the Orange County Superior Court (a state trial court) for statutory invasion of privacy, common law invasion of privacy, and negligence per se.
- Rudolph removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Rudolph filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the lawsuit improperly targeted his free speech.
- The district court granted the motion in part but denied it as to the three privacy-related claims, finding that SCI and Whipple had established a reasonable probability of prevailing on those claims.
- Rudolph appealed the district court's partial denial of his anti-SLAPP motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 person have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation held in a public restaurant, making its secret recording a potential violation of California's statutory and common law privacy rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Seeborg, District Judge
Yes. A person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation held in a public restaurant, and therefore a plaintiff's privacy claims based on a secret recording can survive an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The court rejected a bright-line rule that a conversation in a public place can never be confidential. Citing precedents like Sanders v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., the court emphasized that privacy is relative and not an 'all-or-nothing characteristic.' The analysis is fact-specific, depending on the circumstances, such as the identity of the intruder, the means of intrusion, and the parties' efforts to maintain privacy. Here, Whipple presented evidence that he and Rudolph lowered their voices and paused their conversation when others were near, which is sufficient to create a question of fact for a jury as to whether his expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable. Therefore, Whipple demonstrated a reasonable probability of prevailing on his statutory and common law privacy claims, defeating Rudolph's motion to strike.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that, under California law, the right to privacy is not automatically extinguished by the public nature of a location. It solidifies the principle from Sanders that privacy is a relative concept, and the analysis for both statutory and common law privacy claims is highly fact-dependent. The ruling instructs lower courts to examine the specific circumstances of a communication—including the parties' conduct, relationship, and efforts to maintain confidentiality—rather than applying a categorical rule based on location alone. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to quickly dismiss privacy lawsuits via anti-SLAPP motions simply by arguing the recorded event occurred in public.
