Case Summary

4427 The alleged statement that a person identified only as Jane Doe engaged in destructive behavior and is now in the Navy made in connection with a controversy among psychologists regarding the recovery of repressed memory was probably not sufficiently offensive and objectionable to result in liability for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, but in any event, no liability can be imposed because the statement is newsworthy; the statement is probably an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact and so probably would not be subject to defamation liability in any event, however the court did not regard it necessary to resolve that question because the statement made by a psychologist addressing a symposium of psychologists regarding repressed memory was protected by the common interest privilege of Civil Code section 47; disclosure of the true initials of a person otherwise identified only as Jane Doe is not a disclosure of the private fact of her identity; liability cannot be imposed for publishing truthful information contained in public court records; although a plaintiff might not have a reasonable expectation that a friend or relative will not reveal her secrets, she may have a reasonable expectation that the friend or relative will not be deceived into doing so by an investigator posing as an associate of a mental health professional with whom plaintiff has a professional relationship.

TAUS v LOFTUS (Recovered Memory) 40 C4 683 [See: CivC 47; Shulman v Group W 18 C4 200, T/AT 7/98; Sanders v ABC 20 C4 907, T/AT 8/99]