From hidden cameras for a comedy program to newsgathering methods on matters of profound public interest, we have represented clients in all types of privacy actions, including claims for intrusion on seclusion, eavesdropping, wiretapping, publication of private facts and false light invasion of privacy.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998). Represented media defendants in this landmark California Supreme Court case setting the parameters for several kinds of privacy claims, including intrusion on seclusion and publication of private facts, based on newsgathering at an accident scene and in a rescue helicopter.
- Berger v. Hanlon. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, represented cable television network's for a “ride-along” case in federal district court in Montana, where the plaintiff complained that the environmental production staff focusing on the killing of golden eagles should not have followed law enforcement onto his property.
- Scott O'Grady, a pilot who had been downed and rescued behind enemy lines in Bosnia, sued a film corporation and a documentary cable network that the movie "Behind Enemy Lines" was based on events involving him he had not given permission to do that. We represented the cable network.
- Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (2003). Represented television station in this landmark case setting the bounds of the media's use of hidden recording devices in California.Defended cable television company against privacy claims stemming from footage gathered for Candid Camera-style program.
- When parents and their minor daughter, who was conceived from donated sperm, filed an action against a sperm bank, claiming failure to disclose a donor with family history of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, we represented the anonymous sperm donor. The Court of Appeal, resolving a novel issue, held that parents and child could compel the donor's deposition and production of documents to discover information relevant to their action, but that the identity of the client would be protected by all reasonable means. Johnson v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2000).