Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 316 views

    Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Deadspin
    This order grants in part and denies in part ESPN's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jason Pierre-Paul. The court dismisses the count against ESPN and Adam Schefter for violations of Florida's medical privacy law, finding Schefter is not a third party under the statute. However, the court allows the counts of invasion of privacy and respondeat superior to proceed, as Pierre-Paul has properly pleaded that ESPN improperly disclosed his private medical records without consent. While the records related to his public medical condition, the extent of private facts disclosed requires consideration of decency and privacy interests. Additionally, if Schefter unlawfully obtained the records, First Amendment protections may not apply. Therefore, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Deadspin
    316 views2 pages
    This order grants in part and denies in part ESPN's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jason Pierre-Paul. The court dismisses the count against ESPN and Adam Schefter for violations of Florida's medical privacy law, finding Schefter is not a third party under the statute. However, the court allows the counts of invasion of privacy and respondeat superior to proceed, as Pierre-Paul has properly pleaded that ESPN improperly disclosed his private medical records without consent. While the records related to his public medical condition, the extent of private facts disclosed requires consideration of decency and privacy interests. Additionally, if Schefter unlawfully obtained the records, First Amendment protections may not apply. Therefore, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage of

    Original Description:

    Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order grants in part and denies in part ESPN's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jason Pierre-Paul. The court dismisses the count against ESPN and Adam Schefter for violations of Florida's medical privacy law, finding Schefter is not a third party under the statute. However, the court allows the counts of invasion of privacy and respondeat superior to proceed, as Pierre-Paul has properly pleaded that ESPN improperly disclosed his private medical records without consent. While the records related to his public medical condition, the extent of private facts disclosed requires consideration of decency and privacy interests. Additionally, if Schefter unlawfully obtained the records, First Amendment protections may not apply. Therefore, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    316 views2 pages

    Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Deadspin
    This order grants in part and denies in part ESPN's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jason Pierre-Paul. The court dismisses the count against ESPN and Adam Schefter for violations of Florida's medical privacy law, finding Schefter is not a third party under the statute. However, the court allows the counts of invasion of privacy and respondeat superior to proceed, as Pierre-Paul has properly pleaded that ESPN improperly disclosed his private medical records without consent. While the records related to his public medical condition, the extent of private facts disclosed requires consideration of decency and privacy interests. Additionally, if Schefter unlawfully obtained the records, First Amendment protections may not apply. Therefore, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Case 1:16-cv-21156-MGC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2016 Page 1 of 2

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
    Case No. 16-21156-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
    JASON PIERRE-PAUL,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    ESPN INC., a foreign corporation, and
    ADAM SCHEFTER, an individual,
    Defendants.
    ___________________________________________/
    ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER HEARING
    THIS MATTER is before me on Defendant ESPN, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
    4). I have reviewed Defendants Motion to Dismiss, the record, the relevant legal authorities,
    and the arguments made by the parties at the Motion Hearing on August 25, 2016. For the
    reasons fully discussed at the Motion Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
    Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
    Plaintiff Jason Pierre-Pauls Count I against Defendants ESPN, Inc. and Adam Schefter
    for violations under Floridas medical privacy law, Fla. Stat. 456.057, is DISMISSED with
    prejudice. I do not believe Schefter is considered a third party under the relevant portion of the
    statute. See Fla. Stat. 456.057(11). Reading the statute altogether, the constraints on thirdparty dissemination of medical information mainly curb the actions of health providers and the
    parties outlined under the statute in Sections 456.607(7)(a) and 456.607(7)(d). The statute may
    also cover other Florida state actors, see Daw v. Cowan, 2013 WL 5838683, at *9 (N.D. Fla. Oct.
    30, 2013), but that addition would still not encompass a journalist like Schefter.
    But Plaintiffs Counts II and III against Defendants for invasion of privacy and
    respondeat superior remain. I find Plaintiff has properly pled facts, accepted as true at this
    point, that allow me to reasonably infer Defendants improperly disclosed private facts to the
    public. See Cape Publns., Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So. 2d 1374, 1377 (Fla. 1989) (The elements [of
    the tort of invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts] can be summarized as 1) the
    publication, 2) of private facts, 3) that are offensive, and 4) are not of public concern.).
    Defendants contend Plaintiffs medical records were newsworthy since they were connected to
    1

    Case 1:16-cv-21156-MGC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2016 Page 2 of 2

    reports on Plaintiffs medical condition, which all parties agree was a legitimate public concern.
    Though items of genuine public interest in a public figures life may legitimately extend, to
    some reasonable degree, to further information concerning the individual and to facts about
    him, which are not public . . .[t]he extent of the authority to make public private facts is not . . .
    unlimited. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 652D cmt. h (1977). The limits on disclosing
    private facts are anchored to common decency, having due regard to the freedom of the press
    and its reasonable leeway to choose what it will tell the public, but also due regard to the
    feelings of the individual and the harm that will be done to him by the exposure. Id.
    Here, Plaintiff has shown the publication of his private medical records may breach
    these limits and, thus, are not a matter of public concern. Plaintiffs medical records were not
    publically available; he did not consent to their use; and federal and state medical privacy laws,
    though not directly applicable to Defendants, signal that an individuals medical records are
    generally considered private. Separately, the circumstances surrounding the obtainment of
    these medical records are in dispute. If Schefter secured Plaintiffs records unlawfully,
    Defendants may not be afforded First Amendment protections that could otherwise apply in
    publishing these records. See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 515 (2001) ([T]his Court upheld
    the press right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen
    by a third party. . . . It also left open the question whether, in cases where information has been
    acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may punish not only the
    unlawful acquisition, but also the ensuing publication.). Taken together, it is unwise to
    dismiss these counts at this stage of the litigation.
    Finally, Defendants request for attorneys fees under Floridas Anti-SLAPP statute, see
    Fla. Stat. 768.295, is denied. Assuming the statute applies, this suit plainly has merit since
    two of its original three counts remain.
    DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, on this 29th day of August
    2016.

    Copies furnished to:


    Edwin G. Torres, U.S. Magistrate Judge
    Counsel of Record
    2

    You might also like