Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Et Al

20 Cal.4th 907 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was working as a telepsychic giving 'readings' to customers who telephoned a 900 number. P's work area consisted of a large room with rows of cubicles, about 100 total, in which the psychics took their calls. Each cubicle was enclosed on three sides by five-foot-high partitions. The door to the facility was unlocked during business hours, but the company P worked for prohibited access to the office by nonemployees without specific permission. D, employed by D1 was investigating the telepsychic industry and was hired by the PMG, the same company P worked for. D was hired, and while sitting at her desk, she could easily overhear conversations conducted in surrounding cubicles or the aisles near her cubicle. She talked with some of the other psychics in the phone room and secretly videotaped these conversations with a 'hat cam,' i.e., a small camera hidden in her hat; a microphone attached to her brassiere captured sound as well. D videotaped two conversations with P. D1's PrimeTime Live broadcast about the telepsychic industry included a short excerpt from the second conversation. P sued Ds based on the videotaping itself: violation of Penal Code section 632 and the common law tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion. The court ordered trial on these counts bifurcated, with the section 632 count tried first. In a special verdict form, the jury was asked whether the conversation upon which defendants allegedly intruded was conducted 'in circumstances in which the parties to the communication may reasonably have expected that the communications may have been overheard.' Based on the jury's affirmative answer to this question, the trial court ordered judgment entered for defendants on the section 632 cause of action. Ds then moved to dismiss the remaining cause of action for intrusion, for an order of nonsuit, and to reopen their earlier motion for summary judgment on this cause of action. The court denied these motions, allowing trial to go forward on the issue of liability for photographic intrusion. The trial court ruled P could proceed on the theory he had a limited right of privacy against being covertly videotaped by a journalist in his workplace, even though his interaction with that journalist may have been witnessed, and his conversations overheard by coworkers. The jury fixed compensatory damages at $335,000; found Ds had acted with malice, fraud or oppression; and awarded exemplary damages of about $300,000. The Court of Appeal reversed. The majority reasoned that 'the invasion of privacy tort requires an invasion into a secluded area where one has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, that is, an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality.' P appealed.