Taus v. Loftus
54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775, 40 Cal. 4th 683, 151 P.3d 1185 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person may be liable for the tort of intrusion into private matters if they intentionally use a particularly egregious misrepresentation to obtain sensitive, personal information about a plaintiff from a third party, such as a relative or close friend, in a manner that is highly offensive to a reasonable person and violates the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Facts:
- In 1997, Dr. David Corwin published a scholarly article detailing the case of "Jane Doe" (plaintiff Nicole Taus), who seemingly recovered a repressed memory of childhood sexual abuse by her mother. Taus consented to the educational use of her case.
- The case study became prominent in the academic debate over repressed memory theory.
- Defendants Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin Guyer, who were critical of the theory, began an investigation to challenge the validity of Corwin's article.
- During the investigation, Loftus contacted and interviewed Taus's former foster mother, Margie Cantrell, to gather personal information about Taus's life and behavior.
- Cantrell later stated in a declaration that she only agreed to the interview because Loftus falsely represented herself as working with, and being a supervisor to, Dr. Corwin, whom Taus and Cantrell trusted.
- Based on their investigation, Loftus and Guyer published a critical article in the Skeptical Inquirer, using information obtained from sources like Cantrell but continuing to refer to Taus as "Jane Doe."
- After publication, Loftus allegedly made statements at a professional conference that "Jane Doe" was in the Navy and had engaged in "destructive behavior."
- Loftus also revealed Taus's real initials, N.T., during a deposition in an unrelated case after Taus had already filed the lawsuit revealing her own name.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicole Taus sued Elizabeth Loftus and other defendants in California superior court (a trial court) for several torts, including invasion of privacy and defamation.
- Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute.
- The trial court denied the motion for most of the claims, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part, striking most claims, but affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to strike with respect to four specific aspects of defendants' conduct.
- Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the four claims that the Court of Appeal permitted to proceed.
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 an investigator commit the tort of intrusion into private matters by using a significant misrepresentation to obtain personal information about a person from that person's former foster mother, when the foster mother is not under a legal obligation to maintain confidentiality?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C. J.
Yes. A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case for the tort of intrusion into private matters when an investigator obtains personal information from a close associate of the plaintiff by means of a serious and offensive misrepresentation. While an individual assumes the risk that a friend may voluntarily disclose private information, they retain a reasonable expectation of privacy against third parties who use improper and unforeseen means to extract that information. Intentionally misrepresenting oneself as an associate of a trusted mental health professional to a plaintiff's former foster mother is a particularly serious type of misrepresentation that a jury could find to be 'highly offensive.' While the court dismissed Taus's other claims relating to public disclosure of private facts and defamation as either newsworthy or privileged, the intrusion claim based on the alleged deception of Cantrell is sufficient to survive a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Moreno, J.
No. The intrusion tort claim should be dismissed because Taus had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the information held by her former foster mother, Cantrell. The first element of the intrusion tort requires a plaintiff to have a reasonable expectation of seclusion in the data source, but once a person imparts information to a third party, they risk that party's betrayal. The majority improperly merges the tort's two distinct elements—a reasonable expectation of privacy and the use of highly offensive means—by suggesting that the offensive nature of the alleged misrepresentation creates the expectation of privacy. Because Taus could not reasonably expect Cantrell to keep her observations private, especially after Cantrell had already participated in the original published article, the intrusion claim fails regardless of how Loftus obtained the information. Allowing this claim to proceed would chill legitimate academic and journalistic inquiry.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the common law tort of intrusion into private matters by extending a plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy to information held by third parties. The court established that this expectation can be violated when an investigator uses an egregious misrepresentation to subvert the will of a confidant, like a friend or relative, to extract information. This creates a new potential liability for journalists and researchers, distinguishing between routine reporting techniques and deceptive practices deemed 'beyond the pale,' such as impersonating a trusted professional. The ruling suggests that the method of newsgathering, not just the nature of the information sought, can be the basis for an intrusion claim, potentially impacting investigative methods in future cases.
