Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of California · 1999 · Torts

20 Cal. 4th 907 (1999)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsInvasion of PrivacyIntrusionWorkplace Privacyintrusion upon seclusionreasonable expectation of privacycovert videotapingjournalism

Facts

ABC reporter Stacy Lescht obtained employment as a telepsychic at PMG while secretly wearing a hidden camera and microphone. PMG's psychics worked in a large room of three-sided cubicles in an office not open to the general public, though coworkers could overhear nearby conversations. Lescht covertly videotaped two conversations with Sanders, one in or near her cubicle and one in Sanders's cubicle, including discussion of Sanders's personal beliefs and aspirations. The jury found the conversations were made under circumstances in which they could reasonably have been overheard, defeating the section 632 claim, but later found defendants liable for intrusion.

Issue

Can an employee who lacks complete privacy from coworkers in a workplace conversation still have a common law intrusion claim when a television reporter secretly videotapes the conversation in a workplace not open to the general public? Also, did the jury's finding on the section 632 claim preclude the intrusion claim, and were the intrusion instructions erroneous?

Rule

For the intrusion tort, the plaintiff must show (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter, and (2) that the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person. A reasonable expectation of privacy need not be absolute or complete; in a nonpublic workplace, an employee may retain a limited but legitimate expectation against covert visual or aural recording by a stranger or media intruder even if coworkers could have seen or overheard the interaction. The reasonableness of privacy depends on the identity of the alleged intruder and the nature and means of the intrusion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores works in a staff-only claims processing room for Redwood Harbor Mutual in Sacramento. Her desk sits in an open cluster where nearby coworkers can sometimes hear ordinary conversation, but the room is not open to customers or the public. A television producer posing as a temporary employee secretly records Nina's conversation with a coworker using a concealed camera.

If Nina sues for intrusion upon seclusion, which is the best analysis of whether the privacy element can be satisfied?

Explanation. The majority held privacy for intrusion is not all-or-nothing. In a workplace not open to the general public, employees may retain a limited but legitimate expectation that internal conversations will not be secretly videotaped by a media intruder, even if coworkers could overhear. The rule is not automatic, but the possibility of coworker observation does not defeat privacy as a matter of law.