P was an employee of a liquor store that was robbed by two masked black men. P witnessed the fatal shooting of a fellow employee. The police department released its report to the press, giving details of the robbery, including P's name and address. D published a front-page article and identified P as a witness and printed his address. The two suspects were still at large. P sued under intentional infliction of emotional distress. P claimed he has been in constant fear, has been forced to change his residence repeatedly, has become suspicious of all black persons and has been under the care of a psychiatrist. P contends D's publication of his name and address constituted outrageous conduct because Ds knew or should have known the killers were still at large. The judge gave D summary judgment.