Tylo v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 55 Cal. App. 2d 1379, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who places their mental and emotional state at issue in a lawsuit does not waive their constitutional right to privacy regarding all aspects of their personal life. Discovery into such constitutionally protected areas is narrowly limited to information that is directly relevant to the specific emotional injuries claimed in the litigation.
Facts:
- In February 1996, actress Hunter Tylo entered into a contract with Spelling Entertainment Group to perform a recurring role on the television series 'Melrose Place'.
- The contract gave Spelling the right to terminate Tylo for any 'material change in [petitioner’s] appearance'.
- Relying on the new contract, Tylo announced her departure from her role on 'The Bold and the Beautiful' and turned down other acting opportunities.
- In mid-March 1996, Tylo learned she was pregnant and instructed her manager to inform Spelling.
- On April 10, 1996, Spelling terminated Tylo's contract, stating that the character she was hired to play was 'by necessity not pregnant'.
Procedural Posture:
- Hunter Tylo filed a complaint against Spelling Entertainment in a California trial court, alleging employment discrimination and other claims, including a request for emotional distress damages.
- During a deposition conducted by Spelling's counsel, Tylo, the deponent, refused to answer certain questions about her marriage and her efforts to become pregnant, asserting her constitutional right to privacy.
- Spelling, the defendant, filed a motion to compel Tylo to answer the questions.
- The trial court granted Spelling's motion, ordering Tylo to answer.
- Tylo, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal to review and overturn the trial court's discovery order.
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 plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages in a wrongful termination suit automatically waive her constitutional right to privacy, thereby compelling her to answer deposition questions about (1) her past marital problems and (2) her intimate efforts to become pregnant?
Opinions:
Majority - Hastings, J.
No as to the marital problems, but yes, with limitations, as to the efforts to become pregnant. A plaintiff’s waiver of the constitutional right to privacy by filing a lawsuit must be narrowly construed, and discovery is permitted only for matters directly relevant to the specific conditions the plaintiff has put at issue. Regarding the marital problems, Spelling failed to demonstrate that Tylo's past marital history was directly relevant to the specific emotional distress she allegedly suffered from her employment termination; their inquiry was merely an impermissible 'fishing expedition' for other potential stressors. However, regarding the pregnancy, Tylo's claim for negligent misrepresentation puts her state of mind at issue. Information about her knowledge and intent to become pregnant during contract negotiations is directly relevant to the elements of materiality and reasonable reliance for that specific cause of action, so narrowly tailored questions on that subject are permissible.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of California's constitutional right to privacy within the context of civil litigation, establishing that a general claim for emotional distress does not function as a complete waiver of that right. It places a clear burden on the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a direct nexus between the private information sought and the specific claims at issue, rather than engaging in speculative 'fishing expeditions.' This precedent significantly limits the scope of discovery into a plaintiff's personal life, protecting litigants from overly intrusive inquiries into sensitive areas like marital relationships unless a compelling and direct relevance to the case can be proven.
Unlock the full brief for Tylo v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.