Jane Doe v. V. Leroy Young
664 F.3d 727
8th Cir.2011Background
- Body Aesthetic performed cosmetic surgeries; Doe, a patient, allowed nude pre/postoperative photos for medical care.
- Riverfront Times published a 2006 article with nude images of Doe from the photos, not identifying her face.
- Surgeons cooperated with the article, supplied a PowerPoint with patient photos; 14 photos of Doe used in the piece.
- Riverfront Times removed some images from website; print publication could not be altered.
- Doe sued in federal court (diversity), asserting privacy invasion and breach of fiduciary duty; jury awarded $100,000 compensatory for breach of fiduciary duty, no punitive damages.
- Doe moved for new trial; the district court excluded Hinman’s testimony about prepublication assurances, affecting punitive-damages arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of Hinman testimony was error. | Doe argues Hinman testimony was highly probative on punitive damages and not privileged. | Appellees argue exclusion prevented surprise and protected privilege; selective question should not be allowed. | Yes, abuse of discretion; Hinman testimony should have been admitted. |
| Effect of evidentiary ruling on punitive damages. | Hinman’s testimony would support punitive-damages finding by showing reckless indifference. | Punitive damages hinge on other evidence; exclusion not fatal to claim. | Remand for new trial on punitive damages; ruling reversed in part. |
| Whether invasion of privacy verdict stands given the evidentiary error. | Error tainted the privacy claim verdict; new trial warranted on that count. | Verdict supported by substantial evidence; error did not affect privacy verdict. | Court leaves privacy verdict intact; but remands for punitive-damages retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Cablevision, Inc. v. Storer Broad. Co., 583 F. Supp. 427 (E.D. Mo. 1984) (balanced journalist privilege; discovery of nonconfidential materials)
- Moore v. United States, 648 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2011) (Federal Rules favor admissibility of relevant evidence)
- Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 37 sanctions and discovery considerations; limits on exclusion)
- PFS Distrib. Co. v. Raduechel, 574 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2009) (new trial standards; weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Chism v. CNH Am. LLC, 638 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2011) (reversal only for clear abuse of discretion affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Reed, 636 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for evaluating witness testimony impact on verdict)