Can Publicizing a Person’s “Address and Physical Appearance” in Connection with True Allegations of Misconduct Be Actionable?
Today’s Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sean Riordan in Davis v. Harrison (E.D. Cal.) discusses a lawsuit that stems from family drama (more details below); plaintiff sued for defamation and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and then moved for judgment on the pleadings. The report and recommendation concluded that there were factual disputes as to the defamation question (basically, who’s telling the truth), and it also concluded that those would affect the IIED claim as well. But it also raised the question whether and when even accurate allegations, coupled with disclosure of personal information about the plaintiff, might constitute IIED:
The Complaint alleges that Defendant’s daily efforts to defame and harass Plaintiff online are “so extreme that it exceeds all bounds of decency in a civilized community[.]” It further alleges that Defendant jeopardized Plaintiff’s safety by distributing her personal information whenever she made those accusations. Finally, the Complaint asserts that the “emotional, mental, and physical distress” caused by this conduct is amplified by the fact that Plaintiff is trying to process the grief arising from Mr. Shabazz’s death.
Defendant’s alleged conduct would certainly qualify as outrageous if her statements about Plaintiff and her family are false. But as discussed above, judgment on the pleadings for any defamation claim is improper because the veracity of Defendant’s allegations against Plaintiff is in dispute.
Whether daily posts about Plaintiff and her family are extreme and outrageous if Defendant’s allegations are true is unclear. Plaintiff cites no case law indicating that prolific social media posting about another individual constitutes IIED where the contents of the posts are substantially true, even if extremely unflattering.
This ambiguity extends to the leaking of Plaintiff’s personal information, including her address and physical appearance. There is surprisingly little case law on whether “doxing” an individual can constitute IIED.
One court suggested that doxing, in combination with defamatory content, would be a
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
