Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, PC
2014 UT App 144
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Conilyn Judge underwent cosmetic surgery in 2006 and signed consent forms permitting photography for "medical, scientific or educational purposes" so long as her identity was not revealed.
- In 2008 a TV reporter sought a positive patient for a news story; Judge agreed to be interviewed and to B-roll filming in the surgeon's office.
- The surgeon's office sent the reporter before-and-after photos of Judge (neck down) and four other patients; office emails identified Judge's photos by name.
- The news broadcast and online story displayed Judge's redacted photos (black bars over bust and pelvis) and verbally identified them; Judge later settled with the news organization and dismissed claims against it.
- Judge sued the surgeon and his practice for false light, public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent hiring/supervision; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied certain discovery requests.
- The appellate court reversed summary judgment on all five claims (finding genuine factual disputes about consent, disclosure, identity, and damages) and affirmed most discovery rulings but vacated the denial of financial discovery relevant to punitive damages under Utah statutory standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False light — sufficiency of pleaded special damages | Judge pleaded lost income and emotional distress and produced deposition evidence that her work decreased after the broadcast. | Saltz argued Judge produced no evidence of lost profits and that depositions show no causation. | Reversed summary judgment — factual disputes about causation and special damages exist. |
| Public disclosure of private facts — whether there was a public disclosure and whether the photos revealed a private fact | Giving photos to a reporter preparing a public story made publication substantially certain; the photos, though redacted, revealed private body parts taken in a private setting. | Saltz argued release to a reporter is not necessarily publication to the public at large and Judge had publicly shown similar body parts (bikini). | Reversed summary judgment — reasonable minds could differ on whether disclosure to reporter was substantially certain to become public and whether photos disclosed a private fact or were of legitimate public interest. |
| Intrusion upon seclusion — scope of consent and identity revelation | Consent to photography for educational purposes did not necessarily authorize third-party release; the office's identifying email and the broadcaster's identification may have violated the consent limitation protecting identity. | Saltz argued Judge consented to photos for educational purposes and the photos did not reveal identity or exceed the consent. | Reversed summary judgment — ambiguity in consent language and disputed meaning of "educational purposes" and identity limitation create factual issues. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty & negligent employment/supervision — liability based on disclosure | Judge argued breach and negligent supervision flowed from unauthorized disclosure and identification. | Saltz relied on the district court's findings about consent and educational purpose to defeat these tort claims. | Reversed summary judgment — same factual disputes that defeat summary judgment on privacy torts also preclude summary judgment on these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Suarez v. Grand County, 296 P.3d 688 (Utah 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Shattuck-Owen v. Snowbird Corp., 16 P.3d 555 (Utah 2000) (public disclosure requires communication to the public at large or substantial certainty of public knowledge)
- Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1975) (newsworthiness and limits on exposing private facts when plaintiff participates in media story)
- Hodges v. Gibson Prods. Co., 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991) (special damages pleading principles)
- Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720 (Utah 1990) (contract ambiguity is a question of fact)