Facts

The three adult children and the former personal assistant of the late philanthropist Richard D. Colburn sued Richard D. Colburn's eighth wife, Jacqueline Gasser Sanchez Colburn, for invasion of privacy based on illegal wiretapping of the late Colburn's telephones, undertaken on Jacqueline Colburn's behalf by her private investigator, Anthony Pellicano.

The case went to the jury against defendant Jacqueline Colburn on two causes of action: 1) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which authorizes civil awards of $5,000 for each separate communication that is electronically eavesdropped or recorded, and 2) common law invasion of privacy, for which emotional distress damages were sought.

Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims for punitive damages before the case was submitted to the jury.

Pellicano defaulted and did not appear at the trial.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that Pellicano acted as Jacqueline Colburn's agent under a written power of attorney when conducting the illegal wiretapping and that she authorized and/or ratified his conduct.

Plaintiffs also alleged that they did not discover the wiretapping, which had occurred between December 1999 and October 2000, until May 2007 when a New York Times article disclosed possible wiretapping of the late Richard D. Colburn by Pellicano on behalf of defendant Jacqueline Colburn. Plaintiffs thus contended that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that May 2007 discovery.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Jacqueline Colburn denied that she had authorized, or even knew of, any wiretapping of Richard D. Colburn's telephones, and further denied that such wiretapping had occurred. Jacqueline Colburn also contended that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs demanded $2.5 million; Defendant did not make an offer.

Result

Four plaintiffs were awarded a total of $3,895,000 based on allegations of illegal wiretapping in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and common law invasion of privacy. The jury awarded $3,295,000 under the statute, which authorizes civil awards of $5,000 for each separate communication that is electronically eavesdropped or recorded, plus $150,000 to each of the four plaintiffs for emotional distress damages.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

12-0 (on the claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act), 12-0 (on the liability issues raised by the common law invasion of privacy claims), 11-1 (on the emotional distress damages)

Length

nine days