## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 34 42

__ __ __ __ __ _

Ja ne Doe, *

* App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn

* Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. V. Leroy Youn g, M .D., an i nd iv id ua l; *

Ro be rt C en te no , M.D., an i nd iv id ua l; *
C. B. Bo swe ll , M.D., an i nd iv id ua l; *
Aes th et ic Su rg ery Ass oc ia te s, In c., *
a Mi ss ou ri c or

po rat io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss *

as Bo dy Aesth et ic Pla st ic Su rg ery & *
Sk in Care Cen te r, *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 11
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 28 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Ja ne Doe su ed Aes th et ic Su rg ery Ass oc ia te s, In c., do in g bu si ne ss as Bo dy

Aes th et ic Pl as ti c Su rg ery & Sk in Care Cen te r ( B o d y A e s th et ic ), an d th ree of it s

s u r g e on s— V. Lero y You ng , M.D., Ro be rt Cen te no , M.D., an d C.B. Bo swe ll

, M.D.
(co ll ect iv el y , ap pe ll ees )—c la im in g th ey in va de d he r pr iv acy an d br each ed th efid uc ia ry du ty of co nf id en ti al it y th ey owe d to he r whe n th ey ga ve nu de ph ot og rap hi c

im ag es of he r bo dy to a ne wsp ap er, whi ch pu bl is he d th e im ag es

. A jury fo un d in fav or

o f Doe on he r br each of fid uc ia ry du ty cl ai m an d award ed he r $1 00 ,00 0 i n

co m pe ns at or y da m ag es

. Doe ap pe al s an d req ue st s a ne w tri al

, cl ai m in g th e m ag is tra te jud ge ab us ed th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g cert ai n cri ti cal ev id en ce th at wou ld

1

ha ve li ke ly in crea se d th e ve rd ic t a mo u n t

. W e affi rm in pa rt, rev ers e in pa rt, an d

rem an d fo r a n ew tr ia l o n p un it iv e d am ag es

.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts 2

B o d y Aes th et ic is a Mi ss ou ri co rp or at io n th at pe rfo rm s aes th et ic pl as ti c

su rg eri es

. Dr. You ng , Dr. Cen te no , a n d Dr. Bo swe ll were al l su rg eo ns at Bo dy

Aes th et ic du rin g th e rel ev an t ti m e pe rio d. In Sep te m be r 20 04

, Doe co ns ul te d wit h Dr.

You ng ab ou t rem ov in g ex ces s sk in res ul ti ng fro m Doe ’s lo ss o f a p p r o xi m at el y 15 0

po un ds

. Dr. You ng reco m m en de d Do e u nd erg o sev eral su rg ic al pr oc ed ur es —a bel t

li pe ct om y , a br ach io pl as ty, an d li ps oc ut io n of he r le gs

. Doe ag reed an d sc he du le d th e

su rg ery.

Th a t sa m e da y , in co m

pl ia nc e wit h Bo dy Aes th et ic ’s po li cy , Doe al lo wed a

Bo d y A e s t h et ic em

pl oyee to ta ke ph ot og rap hs of he r be fo re an d aft er he r su rg ery.
The se ph ot og rap hs in cl ud ed nu de im ag es of Doe

, whi ch Doe was to ld were req ui red

an d s he un de rs to od wou ld be us ed for he r m ed ic al care

.

The pa rti es co ns en te d to juri sd ic ti on by a Uni te d St at es Mag is t r at e Ju dg e 1

pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c)( 1) , her eaft er re fere nc ed as t he di st ric t co ur t.

“ W e reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic ts an d affo rd 2 [Do e] al l reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Sh el to n v

. K en ne dy Fu nd in g In c., 62 2 F.3 d 94 3,
94 6 n .2 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ). The fa ct s ar e m os tl y un di sp ut ed

.

-2

-Bo dy Aes th et ic p e r f or m ed th e su rg eri es in Octo be r 20 04

. Doe ex pe rie nc ed

co m pl ic at io ns du rin g he r reco ve ry , in cl ud in g a st ap h in fect io n. In Aug us t 20 05

, Doe

su ed th e ap pe ll ees for m ed ic al m al pr act ic e. The p art ie s u lt im at el y set tl ed th at su it

.

In Apr il 20 06

, th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes , a Sai nt Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri, area week ly

ne wsp ap er, pu bl is he d— in pr in t an d on it s web si te —an art ic le en ti tl ed “ Su lt an of

Sk in .” The art ic le fo cu se d on Dr. You ng an d Bo dy Aes th et ic ’s pr act ic e, co ve rin g it s

m or e un us ua l pr oc ed ur es

. The art ic le co nt ai ne d be fo re an d aft er su rg ery nu de fro nt al

im ag es of Do e fro m he r sh ou ld ers to he r kn ees . Accompan y in g t he im ag es was t hi s

cap ti on : “ A m as si ve -wei gh t-l os s p at ie nt be fo re a b od y li ft t o re m ov e h er p an nu s . . .

an d a fte r.” The art ic le di d n ot id en ti fy Doe a nd th e im ag es di d n ot rev eal he r fac e.

The su rg eo ns ad m it te dl y co op erat ed wit h Rive rf ro nt Ti mes st aff writ er Kris te n

Hin m an in he r pr ep arat io n fo r th e art ic le

, bu t th e su rg eo ns cl ai m ed th ey be li ev ed th e

art ic le was go i n g to fo cu s on “ su rg ery fo r pe op le who ha d ha d m as si ve weig ht lo ss ,

no t ab ou t [Bo dy Aes th et ic ’s] pr act ic e.” In ad di ti on to gr an ti ng Hin m an in te rv ie ws an d

acce ss to th ei r pr act ic e, th e ap pe ll ees ga ve Hin m an a co m pu te r di sk wit h a Po werPo in t

pr es en ta ti on

. The pr es en ta ti on , whi ch was or ig in al ly cre a t e d f o r an ed uc at io na l

se m in ar ta ug ht by Dr. You ng , i nc lu de d nu m ero us pa ti en t ph ot og rap hs

. F o u r t e en of

th e p ho to gr ap hs were o f Doe , com pr is in g t he im ag es ul ti m at el y us ed in th e art ic le

.

W he n Dr. Cen te no fir st sa w th e art ic le

, he as ke d Hin m an to rem ov e th e im ag es

. The Rive rf

ro nt Ti mes rem ov ed th e im ag es fro m it s web si te

, bu t to ld Dr. Cen te no it was

to o la te to rem ov e th e im ag es fro m th e pr in t pu bl ic at io n. Doe —wh o ha d by th at ti m e

m ov ed fro m Mi s s o u r i t o a su bu rb of Atl an ta

, Geo rg ia —d id no t le arn ab ou t th e

pu bl ic at io n of th e im ag es of he r bo dy un ti l May 20 07

, whe n he r at to rn ey s sh owe d he r

a co py of th e n ews pa pe r.

-3

-B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

In Feb ru ary 20 08

, D o e su ed th e ap pe ll ees in fed eral co ur t, pr op erl y as se rti ng
di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , an d al le ge d fiv e st at e-l aw cl ai m s , i n c l u di ng (1 ) in va si on of

pr iv acy an d in tru si on up on se cl us io n, an d (2 ) br each of fid uc ia ry du ty. Doe so ug ht

co m pe ns at or y an d p un it iv e d am ag es

.

In Aug us t 2 0 0 8, th e ap pe ll ees se rv ed su bp oe na s an d no ti ces of de po si ti on

up on th e Rive rf

ro nt Ti mes ’ cu st od ia n of reco rd s an d Hin m an

. The su bp oe na s so ug ht :

A fu ll an d co m

pl et e co py of al l do cu m en ts an d/ or m at eri al s in y ou r
po ss es si on , cu st od y or co nt ro l, us ed to pr ep are [th e art ic le ]

. . ., in cl ud in g

. . . a l l co nt en ts of th e fil e, al l co rres po nd en ce co nc ern in g th e art ic le or
pr ep arat io n th ereo f, em ai ls

, no te s, m em or an da

, dr aft s, ed it s, ta pe s,

reco rd in gs , di gi ta l co pi es , tra nsc ri pts

, j our na ls, el ec tr oni c diaries

, an d an y
ot he r rel ev an t m at eri al s.

The Rive rf

ro nt Ti m e s , w h i c h was no t a pa rty to th e su it

, m ov ed to qu as h th e

su bp oe na s an d no ti ces of de po si ti on

. The pu b l i c a ti on cl ai m ed th ey were ov erb ro ad

an d vi ol at ed an al le ge d qu a l i f i e d jou rn al is t’s pr iv il eg e by se ek in g m at eri al s

im pl ic at in g th e “

Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ’ res earc h an d in ve st ig at io n in to th e

. . . st or y .” The

ap pe ll ees op po se d t he m ot io n. Do e rem ai ne d s il en t.

Rel y in g on Co nt ’l Cab le vi si on , In c. v. St or er Bro ad

. Co

., 58 3 F. Su pp

. 42 7, 43 5
(E.D. Mo

. 19 84 ), th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d a qu al ifi ed jou rn al is t’s pr iv il eg e req ui red th e

co ur t t o “ ba la nc e th e co m pe ti ng in te res ts in vo lv ed by con si de rin g t he rel ev an ce an d

m at eri al it y of th e in fo rm at io n, whe th er th e pa rty se e k in g th e in fo rm at io n ha s m ad e

reas on ab le effo rts to ob ta in th e in fo rm at io n fro m an in de pe nd en t so ur ce, an d whe th er

th ere is tru ly a ne ed fo r th e in fo rm at io n.” The d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d th e Rive rf ro nt

Ti mes ’ m ot io n to qu as h th e di sc ov ery req ue st s, co nc lu di n g t h e a pp el le es “ al le ge d

im pr op er di ss em in at ion of the phot ogr ap hs co nt ai ne d in [Do e’s] m ed ic al reco rd s [was ]

-4

-th e he art of th e cas e, no t th e su bs eq ue nt pu bl ic at io n o f th e ph ot og rap hs ,” an d “ ot he r

so ur ces of i nf

or m at io n h a[d ] no t b een ex ha us te d.”

In Mar ch 20 09 , n ear th e di sc ov ery de ad li ne , Doe se rv ed th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes
wit h a su bp oe na , se ek in g do cu m en ts an d de po si ti on te st im on y fro m a rep res en ta ti ve

“ co nc ern in g th e rece ip t an d pu bl ic at io n of th e im ag e fil es ” of Doe

. The Rive rf ro nt

Ti mes ag ai n m ov ed to qu as h, ar gu in g t he in fo rm at io n was ov erb ro ad an d p art of t he

ed it or ia l pr oc es s, in fri ng in g th e al le ge d qu al ifi ed jou rn al is t’s pr iv il eg e. The ap pe ll ees joi ne d t he m ot io n t o q ua sh

.

T his ti m e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th e qu al ifi ed jou rn al is t’s pr iv il eg e di d not

sh ie ld th e Rive rf

ro nt Ti mes

. The di st ric t co u r t fo un d, un li ke th e ap pe ll ees ’ earl ie r

su bp oe na s , Doe ’s su bp oe na cam e at th e en d of di sc ov ery—afte r sh e ha d ex ha us te d

ot he r so ur ces —an d di d no t in va de th e ed it or ia l pr oc es s. Fi nd in g Doe ha d sh own sh e

co ul d ac c e ss th is cru ci al in fo rm at io n on ly th ro ug h th e ne wsp ap er, th e di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed in pa rt th e Ri v er

fr on t Ti mes ’ m ot io n to qu as h, al lo win g Doe to qu es ti on th e

Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ab ou t it s “ rece ip t an d us e of th e ph ot og rap hi c im ag e f i l e s i n

qu es ti on .”

The Rive rf

ro nt T i m es de si gn at ed Sen io r Art Dire ct or Jo hn Carl so n as it s

co rp or at e de si gn ee fo r pu rp os es of th e de po si ti on

. Dur i n g th e de po si ti on , Carl so n

st at ed he be li ev ed th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ha d be en un ab le to us e th e ph ot og rap hs fro m

th e Po werPo in t pr es en ta ti on an d t h e r e f o re req ue st ed an d rece iv ed a se co nd se t of

hi gh er-r es ol ut io n ph ot og rap hs fro m th e ap pe ll ees

. Carl so n sp ecu la te d ei th er Hin m an

or ph ot og rap he r Je nn ife r Si lv erb erg req ue st ed th es e im ag es

.

Ba se d on Carl so n’s co m

m en ts

, th e ap pe ll ees m ov ed to reo pe n dis co ve ry in or de r

t o d e p o s e Hin m an an d Si lv erb erg to fin d ou t “ ho w Rive rf ro nt Ti mes rece iv ed th e ph ot og rap hi c im ag e fil e s

. ” The Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ob

jecte d to reo pe ni ng di sc ov ery.

Doe di d no t. The di st ric t co ur t reo pe ne d di sc ov ery fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e req ue st ed

,

-5

-bu t rem in de d th e pa rti es th ey were “ no t pe rm it te d to se ek an y in fo rm at io n rel at in g to

th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ’ ed it or ia l pr oc es s rel at in g to th e co nt en t of th e st or y wit h whi ch

th e p ho to (s ) in qu es ti on ap pe ared .”

On Ju ne 2, 20 09

, th e ap pe ll ees de po se d Hin m an an d bo th pa rti es ’ at to rn ey s

as ke d he r a va rie ty o f qu es ti on s. Not ab ly, n o on e as ke d Hi n man w h e t he r an y on e at

Bo dy Aesth et ic to ld he r no t t o u se th e p ho to gr ap hs or whe th er she pr om is ed an y on e

fro m Bo dy Aesth et ic an op po rtu ni ty to re vi ew he r art ic le be fo re p ub li cat io n.

On Octo be r 23

, 20 09

, Doe fil ed an am en de d wit ne ss li st in co m pl ia nc e wit h

F e d

. R

. Ci v. P. 26 (a)( 3)

, li st in g Hin m an as a po te nt ia l wit ne ss

. Tha t sa m e da y , t h e

ap pe ll ees m ov ed in li m in e to ex c l u d e cert ai n ev id en ce, in cl ud in g al l te st im on y by

Hin m an no t rel at ed to th e al le ge d rece ip t of a se co n d s et of ph ot og rap hs

. On

Nov em be r 6, 20 09 , t he di st ric t co ur t pr es id ed ov er a p ret ria l he ari ng to co ns id er th e

ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n. W hi le res erv in g fin al jud gm en t, t h e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d an

in cl in at io n to gra nt th e ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n, reas on in g th at al lo win g Hin m an to te st ify

reg ard in g ot he r to pi cs co ul d res ul t in un fai r s u r p r i s e , as well as un ne ces sa ril y

co m pl ic at e th e tr ia l.

The t r i a l be ga n Nov em

be r 9, 20 09

. The ap pe ll ees co nc ed ed th ey m ad e a

m is ta ke in gi vi ng Hin m an th e Po werPo in t pr es en ta ti o n a n d tru st in g he r wit h th e ph ot og rap hs . The ap pe ll ees rep eat ed ly as se rte d th ey to ld Hin m an sh e co ul d n ot us e

th e ph ot og rap hs a n d t h a t sh e pr om is ed th ey co ul d rev ie w an d ap pr ov e th e art ic le

be fo re i t was pu bl is he d.

At tri al

, Doe cal le d Hin m an to te st ify reg ard in g th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng
he r rece ip t of th e ph ot og rap hs

. The pa rti es a r g u e d o ut si de th e pr es en ce of th e jury

reg ard i n g t h e a pp el le es ’ m ot io n to ex cl ud e Hin m an ’s t es ti m on y

. Ack no wled gi ng it

was “ a ve ry cl os e is su e,” th e di st ric t c o u r t e x c lu de d Hin m an ’s t es ti m on y , r eas on in g

it wou ld be an un fai r su rp ris e to th e ap pe ll ees

. Doe m ad e an of fer of pr oo f, pr es en ti ng

-6

-Hin m an ’s te st im on y in whi ch sh e fla tl y de ni ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ as se rti on s th at Hin m an

br each ed an y ag reem en t wit h res pe ct to th e us e of ph ot og rap h s o r p u bl is hi ng th e

art ic le wit ho ut th ei r rev ie w.

Fo ll owi ng a fo ur -d ay tri al

, th e jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of Doe on he r
br each of fid uc ia ry du ty cl ai m , bu t ag ai ns t Doe on he r in va si on of pr iv acy cl ai m

. The
jury award ed Doe $1 00 ,00 0 in co m pe ns at or y da m ag es , an d no pu ni ti ve da m ag es

. Doe

m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al

, arg ui ng (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g Hin man’s

te st im on y ; (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t al lo win g Doe to ex am in e Dr. You ng ab ou t

Doe ’s se tt le d m ed ic al m al pr act ic e cas e ag ai ns t th e ap pe ll ees in res po ns e to th ree

in st an ces whe re th e ap pe ll ees al le ge dl y m is rep res en te d th e fact s; an d ( 3 ) t h e jury

ve rd ic t ag ai ns t Doe on th e in va si on o f pr iv acy cl ai m was ag ai ns t th e gr eat er weig ht

of th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Doe ’s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. Doe ap pe al s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Doe pr im ari ly arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di s c r e t i on by ex cl ud in g th e

pr of fere d te st im on y fro m Hin m an th at (1 ) no on e at Bo dy Aes th et ic s to ld Hin m an sh e

co ul d no t us e th e ph ot og rap hs fro m th e Po werPo in t pr es en ta ti on , an d (2 ) Hin m an di d

no t pr om is e th e ap pe ll ees th e rig ht to rev ie w an d ap pr ov e he r art ic le be f o r e it was

pu bl is he d. As a res ul t, Doe co nt en ds th e jury was al lo wed to he ar on ly on e si de of th e

st or y , cri pp li ng he r ab il it y to co un te r th e ap pe ll ees ’ as se rti on th ey were le ss cu lp ab le

be cau se Hin m an vi ol at ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ tru st by pu bl is hi ng th e pi ct ur es ag ai ns t th ei r
di rect io n a nd wit ho ut th ei r kn owl ed ge

.

W e rev ie w a d i s t r i c t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e te st im on y fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. See Bad y v. Mu rp hy-Kjos, 62 8 F.3 d 1 0 0 0, 10 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ A

di st ri c t c o u r t en

joy s wid e di sc ret io n in ru li ng on th e ad m is si bi li ty of pr of fere d

ev id en ce, an d ev id en ti ar y ru li ng s sh ou ld on ly be ov ert ur ne d if th ere was cl ear an d

pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Id

. at 10 02 -0 3 (q uo ti ng Qui gl ey v. W in te r, 59 8 F.3 d

93 8, 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Des pi te th is de fere nt ia l

-7

-st an da rd

, we ov ert ur n th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e cri ti cal ev id en ce wit ho ut

ad eq ua te jus ti fic at io n.

The Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e “ fav or ad m it ti ng rel ev an t ev id en ce ab se nt a

sp eci fic reas on to ex cl ud e it .” Mo or e v. Uni te d St at es , 64 8 F

. 3 d 6 3 4, 63 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (ci ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 2)

. Hin m an ’s te st im on y was hi gh ly pr ob at iv e of Doe ’s

cl ai m s fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es , whi ch

, acco r d in g to th e jury in st ru ct io ns , req ui red a

fin di ng th e ap pe ll ees ’ co nd uc t was “ ou tra ge ou s be cau se of

. . . ev il m ot iv e or reck le ss

in di ffer en ce to t he rig ht s o f ot he rs .” See Grewell v. Stat e Farm Mu t. Auto

. In s. Co.,

16 2 S.W .3d 50 3, 50 8 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 05 ) (“ Pu ni ti ve da m ag es m ay be award ed fo r
br each of a fid uc ia ry du ty up on a

. . . sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt a c t e d w i t h ev il

m ot iv e an d reck le ss in di ffer en ce to th e pl ai nt iff ’s rig ht s.”)

. A juro r wou ld m or e li ke ly

fin d th e ap pe ll ees sh owe d re ck le ss in di ffer en ce t owa rd th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es to Doe

if th e juro r be li ev ed th e ap pe ll ees ga ve Hin m an th e Po werPo in t pr es en ta ti on wit ho ut

in st ru ct in g he r n o t to us e th e pi ct ur es or , at a m in im um , wit ho ut ge tt in g Hin m an ’s

as su ran ce th e ap pe ll ees wou ld ha ve an op po rtu ni ty t o ap pr o v e t h e art ic le be fo re th e

art ic le was p ub li sh ed

.

Th e ap pe ll ees ’ tr ia l st rat eg y em ph as iz ed Hin m an ’s c ul pa bi li ty, in crea si ng th e

im po rta nc e o f th e jury hear in g Hi nm an ’s si de of t he st or y

. Dr. You ng , for ex am pl e,

sa id du rin g di rect ex am in at io n “ th at we to ld [Hin m an ]

. . . sh e was no t al lo wed to us e

th e ph ot og rap hs ” an d “ Hin m an ha d pr om is ed th at [Dr. You ng ] wou ld g e t t o r ev ie w
th is art ic le .” The ap pe ll ees al so st res se d th is th em e in op en in g an d cl os in g st at em en ts

, cl ai m in g th e ap pe ll ees m ad e a m is ta ke in “ tru st [in g] s om eb od y [th e ap pe ll ees ] were tryin g to he lp ” an d as a res ul t “ go t bu rn ed ,” an d arg u i n g “wh e n i t co m es to th is

pu ni ti ve da m ag e is su e

. . . [th e ap pe ll ees ] ha d ab so lu te ly no id ea

. . . [Hin m an ] wou ld

br eak he r wor d an d wou ld pu bl is h nu de ph ot og rap hs of [Do e].” By em ph as iz in g th is

th em e th ro ug ho ut th e tri al

, th e ap pe ll ees m ad e Hin m an ’s te st im on y to th e co nt rary al l

th e m or e p ro ba ti ve an d s ig ni fic an t.

-8

-O f c ou rs e, no t al l rel ev an t ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e. Ru le 40 3 of th e Fed eral

Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p ro vi de s t ha t rele va nt ev id en ce “ m ay be ex cl ud ed if it s p ro ba ti ve

va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n of th e
is su es , or m is le ad in g th e jury, or by co ns id erat io ns of un du e de la y , was te of ti m e, or

n e e dl es s pr es en ta ti on of cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Abs en t fro m th is li st is “u n f a i r

su rp ris e”— th e d is tri ct co ur t’s p rin ci pa l ju st ifi cat io n fo r ex cl us io n. Se e id

.

Tha t is no t to sa y ex cl ud in g ev id en ce fo r un fai r su rp ris e i s n e ve r ap pr op ria te

. Und er Ru le 37 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l P r oc ed ur e, “ [w]hen a pa rty fai ls to

. . . id en ti fy a wit ne ss in co m pl ia nc e wit h [Fed

. R. Ci v. P] 26 (a) or (e)

. . . [t]he di st ric t

co ur t m ay ex cl ud e th e

. . . te st im on y as a se l f

- ex ecu ti ng sa nc ti on un le ss th e pa rty’ s

fai lu re to co m

pl y is su bs ta nt ia ll y ju s t i f i e d o r ha rm le ss .” W eg en er v. Jo hn so n, 52 7

F.3 d 6 87 , 6 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Fed . R . C iv . P . 3 7( c)(1 )). One of t he pu rp os es

of di sc ov ery is to el im in at e un fai r su rp ris e. S e e M a w b y v

. Uni te d St at es , 99 9 F.2 d

12 52

, 12 54 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). Ru le 37 ’s en fo rcem en t m ech an is m he lp s acco m pl is h th is

pu rp os e.

Bu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n to fas hi on a rem ed y or sa nc ti on fo r di sc ov ery
vi ol at io ns un de r Ru le 37 is no t ab so lu te

. See W eg en er, 52 7 F.3 d at 69 2 (n ot in g “ th e
di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n na rro ws a s t h e se ve rit y of th e sa nc ti on or rem ed y it el ect s

in crea se s” ); se e al so ELCA Ent ers

. v. Si sc o Equ ip

. Ren ta l & Sal es , In c., 53 F.3 d 18 6,

19 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ Exc lu si on of ev id en ce is a ha rs h pe na lt y , a n d sh ou ld be us ed

sp ari ng ly.”); Bo nd s v. Dis t. of Co lu m bi a, 93 F. 3 d 8 0 1

, 8 09 (D.C. Ci r. 19 96 )
(ex pl ai ni ng “ a di sc ov ery sa nc ti on th at res ul ts in a on e-s id ed tri al

. . . is a se ve re on e”

an d be fo re im

po si ng su ch a sa nc ti on , “ th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er a le ss dr as ti c

sa nc ti on ”). The di st ric t c o u r t he re di d no t refe ren ce Ru le 37 as jus ti fic at io n fo r

ex cl ud in g Hin m an ’s te st im on y

. And th e reco rd do es no t in di cat e a Ru le 26 di sc lo su re
vi o l a t io n be cau se Doe ti m el y fil ed he r no ti ce id en ti fy in g Hin m an as a po te nt ia l

wit ne ss

. Ru le s 26 an d 37 can no t su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of Hin m an ’s

te st im on y

.

-9

-The ap pe ll ees arg ue th e ex cl us io n was ap pr op ria te b e c a us e, at th e ti m e

ap pe ll ees so ug ht su ch in fo rm at io n durin g dis co ve ry , th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes su cces sf

ul ly

sh ie ld ed Hin m an fro m di sc us si ng th es e to pi cs by as se rti ng a qu al ifi ed jou rn al is t’s

pr iv il eg e. By ex cl ud in g Hin m an ’s te st im on y , th e ap pe ll ees co nt en d th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y pr ev en te d Doe f r o m “ am bu sh [in g]” th em wit h in fo rm at io n th ey were

pr ev en te d fro m di sc ov eri ng

. Acco rd in g to th e ap pe ll ees , “ [c]ou rts ne ed no t in du lg e

pr act ic es whe reb y a pa rty [ or no n- pa rty] as se rts a pr iv il eg e du rin g pr e-t ria l

ex am in at io n an d t he n vo lu nt ari ly waiv es th at sa m e pr iv il eg e at tri al to su rp ris e or

pr ejud ic e th e op po si ng pa rty.” See Gut ie rrez -Ro dr ig ue z v. Cart ag en a, 88 2 F.2 d 55 3,

57 6 (1 st Ci r. 19 89 ) (q uo ti ng Meyer v. Seco nd Ju di ci al Dis t. Co ur t, 59 1 P.2 d 25 9, 26 1
(Nev

. 19 79 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (“ Co ur ts ha ve no t been afra id to ba r a pa rty fro m

te st ifyin g whe re do in g so was ne ces sa r y t o p rev en t th e ‘thwar t[i ng of ] th e pu rp os es

an d po li ci es of th e di sc ov ery ru le s.’”); Fo x v. Cal

. Si erra Fi n. Serv s., 12 0 F.R.D. 52 0,

53 0 (N.D. Cal

. 19 88 ) (d et erm in in g a p a r t y co ul d no t co nc eal in fo rm at io n fro m
di sc ov ery by a s s e r t i n g a no n- pa rty’ s at to rn ey -cl ie nt pr iv il eg e an d th en “ ex pe ct to

sp rin g it up on th e [o th er pa rty] in th e m id st of tri al fo r th e sa ke of ob ta in in g a ta ct ic al

ad va nt ag e in li ti ga ti on ”); D u f f y v. Cu rri er, 29 1 F. Su pp

. 81 0, 81 5 (D. Mi nn

. 19 68 )
(d eci di ng it wou ld no t al lo w o ne pa rty to s ur pr is e o r pr ejud ic e an op po si ng pa rty by

as se rti ng an d th en vo lu nt ari ly waiv in g th e p riv il eg e ag ai ns t sel f-i nc riminat io n)

. W e reject th e ap pe ll ees ’ arg um en t fo r se ve ral reas on s.

Fi rst, the co nsi st en t th em e of th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ov ery or de rs co nc ern in g th e

Rive rf ro nt Ti mes was fo r th e pa rti es to av oi d to pi cs in vo lv in g th e ed it or ia l pr oc es s an d
by ex te ns io n an al le ge d qu al ifi ed jou rn al is t’s pr iv il eg e. H o wev er, th e pr of fere d

te st im on y fro m Hin m an di d no t im pl ic at e th e ed it or ia l pr oc es s. To t h e ex te nt th e
di st ric t cou rt’s p ret ria l o rd ers pre ve nt ed th e pa rti es fro m as ki ng ab ou t con ve rs at io ns

an d ag reem en ts be twee n Hin m an an d th e ap pe ll ees reg ard in g us e of Doe ’s
ph ot og rap hs or p r e

- p ub li cat io n rev ie w of th e art ic le

, su ch di sc ov ery di d no t se ek

co nf id en ti al co m

m un ic at io ns —o nl y co m

m un ic at io ns be twee n Hin m an an d th e

ap pe ll ees —an d th e or de rs cl earl y wou ld be an ab us e of di sc ret io n an d ha rm fu l erro r.

-1 0-Seco nd

, as su m i n g th e ch al le ng ed te st im on y so m eh ow im pl ic at ed a qu al ifi ed
jo u r n al is t’s pr iv il eg e, th e ho ld er of th at pr iv il eg e—t he Rive rf ro nt Ti mes —wa s 3

ap pa ren tl y wil li ng to waiv e su ch a pr iv il eg e an d al lo w Hin m an to te st ify ab o u t t h i s

sp eci fic an d na rro w to pi c. Hin m an he rs el f, wit h Rive rf ro nt Ti m e s no t ob

jecti ng ,
te st ifi ed for th e o ffer

of p ro of

.

Thi rd

, th e pa rti es de po se d Hin m an ov er fiv e m on th s be fo re tri al

, an d ap pe ll ees ’

c o u n se l ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to in qu ire ab ou t Hin m an ’s reca ll of th e co nv ers at i o n s

co nc ern in g us e of im ag es an d an y pr e-p ub li cat io n rev ie w. App el le es ’ co un se l ch os e

no t t o i nq ui re. Any sur

pr is e was sel f-i nf

li ct ed an d n ot un fai r to th e ap pe ll ees

.

W e of fer no op in io n as to whet he r th e di st ric t co ur t was co rrec t in fo ll owi ng 3

Co nt ’l Cab le vi si on , in whi ch th e di st r i c t co ur t fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri
de ci de d “ ne ws rep or t ers en joy a qu al ifi ed pr iv il eg e, de riv ed fro m th e [F]irs t [A]m en dm en t gu aran te e of a free pr es s, t o w i t h ho ld fro m di sc ov ery in a ci vi l cas e

co nf id en ti al or no n- co nf

id en ti al so ur ces , m at eri al s, or ot he r in fo rm at io n whe re su ch
di sc ov ery wou ld im

pi ng e on th e ab il it y of th e m ed ia to ga th er an d di ss em in at e ne ws.”
Co nt ’l Cab le vi si on , 58 3 F. Su pp

. at 43 5; co m pa re Gon zal es v. Nat’l Bro ad

. Co

., 19 4
F.3 d 29

, 32 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ) (rec og ni zi ng th e qu al ifi e d p r i v il eg e ap pl ie s al so to

n o n c o nf id en ti al m at eri al s) ; Sh oe n v. Sh oe n, 5 F.3 d 12 89

, 12 95 (9 th Ci r. 1 9 9 3 ) (s im il ar); Uni te d St at es v. LaRo uc he Cam pa ig n, 84 1 F.2 d 11 76

, 11 82 (1 st Ci r. 19 88 ) (s im il ar); an d Uni te d St at es v. Cu th be r t s o n, 63 0 F.2 d 13 9, 14 7 (3 d Ci r. 19 80 ) (s im il ar), wit h Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 13 5 F.3 d 96 3, 97 2 (5 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ha d “ ne v e r r e c o g n i zed a pr iv il eg e fo r rep or te rs no t to rev eal

no nc on fid en ti al in fo rm at io n” an d co nc lu di ng “ ne wsre po rte rs en joy n o qu al ifi ed

pr iv il eg e no t to di sc lo se no nc on fid en ti al in fo rm at io n in cri m in al cas es ”). Eve n if th e Rive rf r o n t T i m e s he ld su ch a pr iv il eg e, it was qu al ifi ed

, an d th e ne wsp ap er’s Fi rs t
Am en dm en t rig ht s were to be ba la nc ed ag ai ns t th e im po rta nc e of th e te st im on y

. See
Co nt ’l Cab le vi si on , 58 3 F. Su pp

. at 43 5 (b el ie vi ng th e “ pr iv il eg e m ay be de feat ed

. . . whe re th e pa rty se ek in g di sc ov ery can de m on st rat e th at th e te st im on y

. . . is rel ev an t

en ou gh

, an d ot he rwis e un av ai la bl e, to ou twei gh th e [F]irs t [A]m en dm en t in te res t of
th e m ed ia ”).

-1 1-Fo ur th

, if an y un fai r su rp ris e ex is te d, th e pr op er co ur se he re was no t ex cl us io n

bu t in st ead so m et hi ng le ss dr as ti c, su ch as a co nt in u a n c e , t o al lo w th e ap pe ll ees to

pr ep are fu rth er fo r th e ne w in fo rm at io n. See Bl ack v. J.I. Cas e Co

., In c., 22 F.3 d 56 8,

57 3 (5 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng th e ad vi so ry c o m m it te e’s no te s to Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3)
(“ W he re a pa rty cl a i ms u n f a i r su rp ris e ‘the gr an ti ng of a co nt in ua nc e is a m or e

ap pr op ria te rem ed y th an ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce.’”); se e al so F&S Offs ho re, In c. v.

K.O. St eel Cas ti ng s, In c., 66 2 F.2 d 11 04

, 11 08 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (n ot in g “ un fai r su rp ris e
is a pa rti cu la rly pro bl em at ic gro un d fo r ex cl us io n o f ev id en ce u nd er Ru le 40 3” ).

Fi na ll y , th e Rive rf

ro nt Ti mes was no t a pa rty to th e la wsu it

. The cas es ci te d by

th e ap pe ll ees in su pp or t of ex cl us io n are di st in gu is ha bl e be cau se th ey al l in vo lv ed

ei th er a pa rty se ek in g to in tro du ce ev id en ce by waiv in g a pr ev io us ly ex e r ci se d

pr i v i l e ge , se e Gut ie rrez -Ro dr ig ue z, 88 2 F.2 d at 57 6; Duf fy

, 29 1 F. Su pp

. at 81 5;

Ru be ns te in v. K l e v e n , 1 5 0 F. Su pp

. 47

, 48 (D. Mas s. 19 57 ), or a pa rty wor ki ng in

co nc ert wit h th e ho ld er of the pri vi le ge to acco m pl is h th e sa m e, se e Fo x, 12 0 F.R.D.

at 53 0. Abs en t ev id en ce of co ll us io n, whi ch th e ap pe ll ees ha ve no t al le ge d or sh own , it was im pr op er to pe na li ze Doe —b y ex cl ud in g ev id en ce cri ti cal to a cen tra l is su e in

he r cas e—b ecau se of t he Rive rf ro nt Time s ’ co nd uc t.

W e rev ie w fo r erro r. The di st ric t co ur t se arch es fo r th e tru th

. Tha t se arch was

wro ng ly ob st ru ct ed in th is cas e. The di st ric t co ur t’s ab us e of di sc ret io n was cl ear an d

su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ejud ic ia l to Doe ’s ab il it y to sh ow th e ap pe ll ees ’ br each of fid uc ia ry
du ty di sr eg ard ed he r pr iv acy rig ht s an d ad ve rs el y affe ct ed he r cl ai m s f o r pu ni ti ve
da m ag es

.

W e rejec t

, h o wev er, Doe ’s arg um en t th at we sh ou ld gr an t a ne w tri al

co nc ern in g li ab il it y on he r i n v a s i o n of pr iv acy cl ai m be cau se , as Doe as se rts

, “ th e jury’ s v e r d ic t in fav or of [th e ap pe ll ees ] was ag ai ns t th e gr eat er weig ht of th e

ev id en ce.” “ W he n a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al is fo un de d on th e as se rti on th at ‘the jury’ s

ve rd ic t is ag ai ns t th e weig ht of th e ev i d e n c e , ’ th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng is ‘virt ua ll y

-1 2-un as sa il ab le on ap pe al .’ ” PFS Dis tri b. Co

. v. Rad ue ch el

, 57 4 F.3 d 58 0, 58 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Keep er v

. K in g, 13 0 F.3 d 13 09

, 13 14 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Rev ers al is

on ly warra nt ed if we de te rm in e th ere is ab so lu te ly no ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e ve rd ic t

aft er “ [v ]iewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng

Co m pu tro l, Inc. v. Newtr en d, L.P., 20 3 F.3 d 10 64

, 10 68 -6 9 (8t h Cir. 20 00 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). W e can no t d o s o h ere.

Doe reco gn iz es th e on ly m ean in gf ul di ffer en c e i n t h e in st ru ct io ns fo r each of

he r cl ai m s is th e in va si on of pr iv acy cl ai m req ui red th e jury to fin d th e a p p e l l e es ’

act io ns br ou gh t “ sh am e an d hu m il ia ti on an d as a res ul t th ereo f [Do e] was da m ag ed ,”

whi le th e br each of fid uc ia ry du ty cl ai m on ly req ui red th at Doe “ su st ai ne d da m ag e.”

The jury he ard ev id en ce th at Doe l e a r n e d ab ou t th e pu bl ic at io n fro m he r at to rn ey s

ov er on e y ear aft er th e art ic le was pu bl i s h e d

. The re was no ev id en ce an y on e el se
id en ti fie d Doe as th e pe rs on in th e p h o t og rap h. W hi le Doe te st ifi ed sh e was
hu m il ia te d, sh am ed

, an d em ba rras se d, th e jury was no t req ui red to be li ev e he r. See, 4

The di ss en t em

ph asizes th e ap pe ll ees ’ cl os in g arg um en t ack no wled gm en t th at 4

Doe su ffer ed hu m il ia ti on an d sh am e. Thi s ack no wled gm en t was in th e co nt ex t of a
di sc us si on on da m ag es , no t li ab il it y , an d was im m ed ia te ly pr eced ed by th es e

co m m en ts :

Of al l of th e f a c t s whe n y ou ’re co m in g an d ta lk in g ab ou t da m ag es , . . . I do be li ev e th e m os t im po rta nt on e, th ou gh

, is who kn ows ab ou t t hi s. . . .

And why is th at im

po rta nt ? W el l, it m

us t, it ha s to gi ve Ms

. Doe

s o me co m fo rt th at he re we are, ag ai n, th ree an d a ha lf y ears af t e r t h i s
art ic le was pu bl is he d an d th e li st of pe op le th a t kn ow he r tru e id en ti ty

are on th at bo ard

. And ot he r th an th e p a r t i e s t o th is la wsu it an d th ei r la wy ers , and th at nu m

be r of pe op le ad ds up to zero

.

Co ns id eri ng th is co nt ex t, we do no t be li ev e th e ap pe ll ees ’ ack no wled gm en t ha d th e im pa ct up on th e in va si on of p riv acy clai m th e d is se nt asc rib es to it

.

-1 3-e

. g

. , U n it ed St at es v. Ree d, 63 6 F.3 d 96 6, 97 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The jury ve rd ic t

,

fin di ng th e ap pe ll ees no t li ab le on Doe ’s in va si on of pr iv acy cl ai m , was su pp or te d by

th e ev id en ce.

The wr on gl y ex cl ud ed te st im on y fro m Hin m an was no t li ke ly to ch an ge th e jury’ s ve rd ic t on t h e p r i v a c y cl ai m

. W he th er th e su rg eo ns ga ve Hin m an th e ph ot og rap hs wit h in st ru ct io ns no t to us e th em or wit h th e pr om is e of pr e-p ub li cat io n

rev ie w is on ly m arg in al ly rel ev a n t

, if at al l, to th e sh am e an d hu m il ia ti on
de te rm in at io n, an d do es no t su pp or t rev ers al

. See Ch is m v. CNH Am

. LLC, 63 8 F.3 d

63 7, 64 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng we wil l on ly rev ers e ba se d up on an ev id en ti ary

ru li ng if t he erro r is a cl ear a bu se of d is cret io n a nd affe ct s th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of a

pa rty or “ ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t” (q uo ta ti on o m it te d) );

W il li am s v. Ci ty of Kan sa s Ci ty, Mo

., 22 3 F.3 d 74 9, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ Evi de nt ia ry

erro rs affe ct a pa rty’ s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s whe n th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e erro rs is to

su bs ta n t i a l l y i nf

lu en ce th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.”)

. W e de te ct no si gn ifi can t in flu en ce th e

Hin m an te st im on y ru li ng ha d up on th e jury’ s pr iv acy cl ai m ve rd ic t, no r do we de te ct

an y “ m is carr ia ge o f ju s t i c e

. ” See PFS Dis tri b. Co

., 57 4 F.3 d at 58 9 (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. 5

Nor is it ne ces sa ry to ret ry th e is su e of co m pe ns at or y da m ag es

. Doe m ai nt ai ns

th e ev id en ti ary erro r “ li m it ed th e sc op e of act ua l da m ag es be cau se th e jury co ul d no t

be li ev e th at [Do e] su ffer ed em ot io na l di st res s in th in ki ng th at he r own ph y si ci an s

in te nt io na ll y vi ol at ed th ei r du t y a n d h e r tru st wit ho ut he ari ng Kris te n Hin m an ’s

W e al so reject Doe ’s arg um en t sh e is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al reg ard in g li ab il it y 5

on th e pr iv acy cl ai m b e c a u s e t he ap pe ll ees ’ co un se l im pr op erl y co m

m en te d on th e

m eri ts of Doe ’s o rig in al m ed ic al m al pr act ic e s u i t t h ree ti m es du rin g tri al

. W e no te th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve a c a ut io na ry in st ru ct io n, whi ch di m in is he d th e ris k of un fai r
pr ejud ic e. See Uni te d St at es v. Dav id so n, 44 9 F. 3 d 8 4 9, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Doe
ha s fai le d to sh ow t h e ch al le ng ed co m m en ts un fai rly pr ejud ic ed he r pr iv acy cl ai m

.

-1 4-te st im on y .” W e are un pe rs ua de d th is ev id en ce ha d a su bs ta nt ia l effe ct up on th e jury’ s

co m pe ns at or y da m ag e award an d th eref or e li m it th e ne w tri al to th e is su e of pu ni ti ve
da m ag es

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm in pa rt, rev ers e in pa rt, va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ju d g ment on

pu ni ti ve da m ag es , and rem an d fo r a n ew tr ia l o n p un it iv e d am ag es

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I ag ree wit h th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n

in ex cl ud in g te st im on y of Kris te n Hin m an of th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes ne wsp ap er in St

. Lou is

. J a n e D o e s ho ul d ha ve be en pe rm it te d to in tro du ce Hin m an ’s te st im on y in

su pp or t o f h e r c l a im s ag ai ns t Aes th et ic Su rg ery Ass oc ia te s, In c., an d th ree of it s
do ct or s (“ th e d oc to rs ”). The cl ai m s were ba se d on th e do ct or s’ di sc lo su re of nu de
ph ot og rap hs of Doe ’s b o d y to th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes an d th e res ul ti ng pu bl ic at io n of

th os e ph ot og rap hs by th e ne wsp ap er. As a res ul t of th e ev id en ti ary erro r, “ th e jury

was al lo wed to he ar on ly on e si de of th e st or y , cri pp li ng [Do e’s] ab il it y to co un te r th e [ d oc to rs ’] as se rti on th at th ey were le ss cu lp ab le be cau se Hin m an vi ol at ed th e [d oc to rs ’] tru st by pu bl is hi ng th e pi ct ur es ag ai ns t th ei r di rect io n an d wit ho ut th ei r

kn owl ed ge .” Ant e , at 7

. I co nc ur in th e rem an d fo r a n ew tr ia l o n p un it iv e d am ag es

fo r th e do ct or s’ br each of fid uc ia ry du ty. I di ss en t, ho wev er, fro m th e co ur t’s de ci si on

to lea ve in pl ace t he jud gm en t on Doe ’s in va si on of pr iv acy cl ai m th at was ren de red

on th is fla wed reco rd

.

Doe sh ou ld rece iv e a ne w tri al on he r cl ai m o f i n v a s i o n of pr iv acy. The jury

w a s in st ru ct ed to ru le fo r Doe on th is cl ai m if “ th e de fen da nt s’ gi vi ng of pl ai nt i f f ’s
ph ot og rap hs to th e Ri ve rfro nt Tim es Newsp ap er b ro ug ht he r sh am e an d hu m il ia ti on

an d as a res ul t th ereo f sh e was da m ag ed .” Doe ’s th eo ry was th at th e do ct or s’ gi vi ng

of th e ph ot og rap hs to th e ne wsp ap er br ou gh t he r sh am e an d hu m il ia ti on be cau se th e

-1 5-di sc lo su re le d di rect ly to th e pu bl ic at io n of t h e ph ot og rap hs in a m et ro po li ta n

ne wsp ap er. The erro ne o u s e x c l u si on of Hin m an ’s t es ti m on y , h owe ve r, le ft th e jury

wit h a reco rd in di cat in g t ha t t he do ct or s s ho ul d n ot be bl am ed for th e p ub li cat io n of

th e ph ot og rap hs an d th e res ul ti ng sh am e a n d hu m il ia ti on , b ecau se th ey were m is le d
by a r e p o r t er fro m th e Rive rf ro nt Ti mes

. The erro r th us affe ct ed Doe ’s su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s.

The co ur t affi rm s th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t Doe on in va si on of pr iv acy, co nc lu di ng

th at th e ev id en ti ary erro r ha d on ly sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t. The co ur t su gg es ts

th at th e jury m

us t ha ve di sb el ie ve d Doe an d de te rm in ed th at sh e di d no t su ffer sh am e

an d hu m il ia ti on at al l. Ant e , at 13

. Thi s ex pl an at io n fo r th e ve rd ic t is un li ke ly; ev en

th e fi na l ar gu m en t fo r th e d oc to rs co nc ed ed th e in jury: “ Am I tryin g t o t el l you t ha t

Ms

. Doe was no t em

ba rras se d, di d no t su ffer hu m il ia ti on an d sh am e in th e th in gs th at

sh e’s ta lk ed to an d th at m ad e he r ve ry up se t? A b s o l ut el y no t. I do n’t do ub t fo r a

se co nd th at sh e su ffer ed th es e th in gs , no r do m y cl ie nt s.” R. Doc

. 17 9, Vol

. 5, at 40

- 41

. Bu t ev en as su m in g it is co nc ei va bl e th at th e jury reject ed th e co nc es si on of th e
do ct or s, th e in fere nc e is no t so st ro ng as to ex cl ud e ot he r reas on ab le ex pl an at io ns fo r

th e ve rd ic t. Doe is en ti tl ed to a tri al on in va si on of pr iv acy th at is no t ta in te d by a

m is le ad in g po rtr ay al o f th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch th e do ct or s ga ve th e ph ot og rap hs to th e Rive rf ro nt Time s

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-