Steinbuch v. Hachette Book Group

Filing 36

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Hachette Book Group re 31 Motion to Amend/Correct (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Stone, Clayborne)

Exhibit 5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT STEINBUCE, Plaintiff, CA No.
V.

05-0970

(PLF)

JESSICA CUTLER, Defendant.

.

Washington, D.C. wednesday, April 5, 2:05 p.m.

2006

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUI L. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:

JONATHAN S. ROSEN, ESQ. 1200 Gulf Boulevard Suite 1506 Clearwater, Florida 33767 908-759-1116 JOHN UMANA, ESQ. 6641 32nd Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20015 202-244-7961 BRYAN A WAYNE, RPR, CRR Official Court Reporter U. S. Courthouse, Room 4808-B 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 202-216-0313

For the Defendant:

Court Reporter:

Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, by computer-aided transcription.

transcript produced

Bryan A. Wayne. RPR, CRR Of ficial Court Reporter

(fl'

58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 one-year statute of limitations of limitations.

if there's a one-year statute

Now, a couple of different points to be made.

I conclude

that there is a one-year statute of limitations with respect to all three of these things. And the plaintiff relies in part on 494 F.

a vase from the District of Maryland, Smith v. Esquire, Supp. 967.

And we have at least two extremely relevant D.C. One is Southeastern University, Doe v,

cases from this court.

Southeastern University, Judge Harris's decision in 732 F. Supp. 7, and the other more recent one by Judge Kessler, Grunseth v. Marriott, 872 F. Supp. 1069.

And in Grunseth Judge Kessler points out, as I have today, that there are actually four different theories for an invasion of privacy claim. And she says that
-

and the one that was

involved in the case before her was the primary one involved here, public disclosure of private facts. And she says that slander,

there is a one-year statute of limitations for libel,

assault and other similar intentional torts, and that this limitation has been applied to invasion of privacy claims, under the rationale that invasion of privacy is essentially a type of defamation. Southeastern. She rejects the plaintiff's argument that the three-year statute applies, and says that
--

She said it's just Harris's approval in Doe v.

and then goes through the

elements of the third of the four theories under Wolf v.

Bryan A. Wayne, RPR, CRR Official Court Reporter

59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Regardie,

so it's clear that that's the one she's talking about.

So she has concluded the one-year statute applies to the third of the four theories. In the restatement it's conceded that it

applies to the fourth of the four theories in the restatement. And with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress
--

and so I agree with her.

And with respect to the it's clear that

intentional infliction of emotional distress, the question is whether it's
--

I can't remember the exact

language, but whether it's officially intertwined with the underlying violation, applies. And by the nature of the complaint I think the allegations are that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is very much intertwined with the invasion of privacy claims, and therefore seems to me that it follows from my finding or conclusion that it's a one-year statute of limitations for the invasion of privacy claims, the same will be true with the Thomas v. then the same statute of limitations

intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. News World Communications, 681 F. Supp. 55, Technology Corporation,

and Dooley v. United

1992 Westlaw 167053, a 1992 case. is the question.

But when does the one year start to run,

Mr. Umana argued that, you know, multiple publication rule and once you publish it once it runs from that date. case that he mentions, Mullin v. 2d 296, The Mullin

Washington Free Weekly, 785 A.

is essentially, Judge Steadman's opinion there is

Bryan I. Wayne, RR, CRR Official Court ReporLer