925 F. Supp. 2d 233
D.R.I.2013Background
- Diversity action arising from publication of The Addict by Dr. Stein, a physician who treated Lisnoff for prescription drug addiction.
- Lisnoff alleges the Book is based largely on confidential disclosures she made during treatment sessions with Stein.
- Lisnoff brought counts for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity to private life, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Stein moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted some dismissals, allowed amendments, and set the stage for Lisnoff's first amended complaint.
- The Book was published while Lisnoff remained in treatment; Lisnoff contends the disclosures were private and disclosed without consent.
- The court analyzes privacy statutes under Rhode Island law and evaluates sufficiency of the complaint under Iqbal/Twombly standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intrusion upon seclusion viability | Lisnoff alleges private disclosures occurred in Stein's office constituting a private seclusion. | No physical intrusion or identifiable person in the Book; publication is protected. | Counts I survives 12(b)(6) based on plausible private-seclusion theory. |
| Unreasonable publicity to private life viability | Book published private facts Lisnoff expected to remain private. | No requirement that readers recognize Lisnoff as the subject; statute interpretation limits. | Count II survives 12(b)(6) as to private-life publicity. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress viability | Publication of private facts was extreme and outrageous, causing distress. | Conduct not extreme/outrageous and lacks physical symptomatology; claim duplicative and unsupported. | Count III granted; lack of physical symptomatology warrants dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swerdlick v. Koch, 721 A.2d 857 (R.I. 1998) (privacy right to be free from public intrusion; private seclusion)
- Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 863 (R.I. 1997) (publicizing private information requires improper means; no intrusion here)
- DaPonte v. Ocean State Job Lot, Inc., 21 A.3d 248 (R.I. 2011) (publicness of private matters in public place; seclusion concept clarified)
- Washburn v. Rite Aid Corp., 695 A.2d 495 (R.I. 1997) (confidential medical records privacy protection)
- Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (First Circuit standard for 12(b)(6) plausibility)
- Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (Iqbal/Twombly standard for plausibility in pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (twombly pleading requirement for plausible claims)