T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ar c h 23, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO BE RT S HOWL E R A ND J OHNNY D A V I D SO N , i ndi vi dual l yand as s peci al admi ni s tr at orof the Est at e of K y l e A dam B r i nl ee, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 7001 HAR P E R’ S M AGAZ I NE F OUNDA T I ON, P E T E R T UR NL E Y, i nd i vidual l yand i n h i s capacityas a contr i but i ng edi t ort o H arper ’ s M agaz i ne,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - DE NVE R P OS T CO RP OR AT I ON; M AGAZ I NE P UB L I S HE RS OF AM ERI CA ; NEW SP APER ASSOCI ATI ON OF A M ERI CA ; NEW YOR K T I M E S CO M P ANY; OKL AHOMA P UB L I S HI NG CO M P ANY; P I CT UR E AR CH I VE CO UNC I L OF AM E RI CA ; RE P OR T E RS CO M M I T T E E F OR F RE E DOM OF T HE P RE S S ; T RI BU NE CO M P ANY, A m i ci C ur i ae. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 17 8- S) (E . D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *H onor abl e J ul i e A . R obi ns on, U . S. D i s tr i ctJ udge, D i s tr i ctof K ans as , s i t t i ng by ** des i gnat i on. B r i nl ee w as adopt ed byR obertB r i nl ee, atw hi ch t i m e Show l er ’ s par ent al

1 ri g h ts w e re te rm in a te d . -2- B ef o re KELLY , B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udges and RO B I NS ON , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants R ob ertS ho w l er and Joh nn yD avidson fil ed thi s sui tagainst D ef en d an ts- A p p ell ee s H arp er’s M ag az ine F o u n d ati o n (“ H a rp er’s ” ) a n d P e t e rT u rn l e y, al l egi ng theycomm i t t ed var i ous t or t s w hen M r . T urnl eyt ook phot ogr aphs of Ser geant K y l e B r i nl ee’ s open ca s ketathi s funer al , and w hen H arper’s publ i s hed, pr om ot ed and so ld th e p h o to g ra p h s. T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to D e f e n d a n ts H arper’s and Pet erT urnl ey , on al l cl ai m s . Pl ai nt i ffs Show l erand D avi ds on now a p p e a l . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m. I. V iew ing the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o P lai n ti ff s, the re co rd e s ta b lis h e s th e f

o llo w in g f

a c ts . See M

et z l erv. Fed. H

om e Loan B ank , 464 F. 3d 1164, 1 1 6 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S g t. K y le B ri n lee w as a so ldier i n the O k laho m a N ati o n al G u ard w ho w as ki l l ed in act i on w hil e serving i n Ir aq o n M ay11 , 20 04 . H e w as the fir st m e m b e r o f

th e O k la h o m a N a tio n a l G u a rd to b e k ille d in a c tio n s in c e th e K o re a n w a r. A s s u c h , S g t. B ri n le e ’s d e a th a n d f u n e ra l w e re th e s u b

je c t o f in te n s e m e d ia c o v e ra g e . R obertShow l eri s Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s bi ol ogi cal father ; and J ohnnyD avi ds on i s hi s m at ernal 1-3-

g ra n d f a th e r a n d th e p e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e o f h is e s ta te . Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s fami l yhi r ed St ephens M emori al C hapel i n thei rhom et ow n of P ry o r, O k lah o m a to h a n d le th e f u n e ra l ar ra n g e m e n ts. T h e f a m ilym a d e th e d e c isio n to open Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s cas ketatthe fune r al beca us e hi s “bodyl ooked fi ne. ” Pr i ort o the f u n e ra l, th e f

a m ilym e t w ith R ick S tep h e n s, w h o ra n th e m e m o ria l ch a p e l. T h e f a m ily r el ay ed t o M r . St ephens thatal though the medi a w as al l ow ed t o att end the fune r al , t he f a m ilyd id n o t w a n t an y o n e tak in g p ictu re s o f S g t. B rin lee ’s o p e n c a sk e t, an d th e yd id n o t w a n t to b e in te rv ie w e d . Pet erT urnl eyi s an i nt ernat i onal phot oj ournal i s tw ho w as w or ki ng on as s i gnm ent fo r H a rp er’s . M r. T u rn ley i s a C o n trib u tin g E d ito r e n g a g e d o n a c o n tra c t b a sis to pr oduce phot o- es s ay s . A tthe t i m e of Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s funer al , M r . T urnl eyw as w or ki ng o n a p h o to-essa yfo r H arper’s conce rni ng thos e gr i evi ng overdeaths caus ed bythe w ar i n I r aq. Pr i ort o Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s funer al , M r . T urnl eycont act ed St ephens M emori al C h a p e l m u ltip le tim e s to a s k w h e th e r t h e p re s s w o u ld b e a llo w e d to a tte n d th e f u n e ra l. H e sp o k e to M r. S teph en s tw ice a n d the o ff ice m an ag er, L o u ise F loy d , o n ce . M r. S t eph ens i nfo rm ed M r. T urnl eythat he cou l d att end the fu neral and t ake p ho t og raphs, bu tthat there w ou l d b e a sect i on atthe b ack o f the au dit ori um desi gn at ed fo r the p res s, a n d f u r th e r , th a th e c o u l d n o ti n t e r v i e w th e f a m i l y. T h e f u n e ra l w a s h e ld a t th e P ry o r H ig h S c h o o l g ym n a siu m . O v e r 1 2 0 0 p e o p le att ended the fune r al and G overnorB r ad H enrys poke atthe s ervi ce. T ow ar d the end of the fune r al , Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s cas ketw as m oved t o the bac k of the audi t or i um , i n fr ontof-4-

the mai n exi t , and opene d. G overnorH enryw as the fi r s ti n a l i ne of pe opl e w ho exi t ed byfi l i ng pas tthe open c as keton t hei rw ayoutof the audi t or i um . M r . T urnl ey , al ong w i th otherphot ogr apher s i n the pr es s s ect i on of the audi t or i um , t ook phot ogr aphs dur i ng th e se rv ice . O n lyM r. T u rn ley t o o k p h o to g ra p h s o f S g t. B rin lee in h is o p e n c a sk e t. A ft erthe gr aves i de s ervi ce, M r . T urnl eyappr oache d M r . Show l erand i ntr oduced hi m s el f, and then i ndi cat ed he ha d phot ogr aphed the fune r al on as s i gnm entfr om H a rp er’s . M r. T u rn le ya s k e d M r. S h o w le r i f h e w o u ld lik e c o p ie s o f th e p h o to g ra p h s . M r. S h o w ler resp o n d ed af firm ati v elyan d p rov ided M r. T u rnleyw ith h is ad d ress. M r. S h o w ler w a s u n a w a re th a t M r. T u rn ley ha d tak e n p h o to g ra p h s o f th e o p e n c a sk e t, how ever . M r . Show l erfi r s tl earned of the open- cas ketphot ogr aphs w hen he r ece i ved c o p ie s f ro m M r. T u rn le yin th e m a il. O n e o f th e p h o to g ra p h s ta k e n b yM r. T u rn ley, “ th e T u rn ley P h o to ,” a lo n g w ith n in e tee n o th e r p h o to g ra p h s d e a lin g w ith th e m o u rn in g o f A m e ric a n s a n d Ira q is k ill e d in the w ar , w as publ i s hed i n the A ugus t2004 edi t i on of H a rp er’s . T he phot o- es s ayw as t i t l ed: “The B er eave d, M ourni ng the D ead, i n A m er i ca a nd I r aq. ” H a rp er’s pr om ot ed the p ho t o-ess ay , and M r. T urnl eycon du ct ed int ervi ew s abou ti tw i th n ew s agenc i es, a p p e a re d in te le v is io n p ro g ra m s , a n d e n te re d th e p h o to g ra p h in n u m e ro u s c o m p e titio n s . D efe ndant s s ol d the phot o- es s ayt o Fr ench magazi ne Le Monde 2 w here i tw as al so publ i s hed. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed s ui ti n di ver s i tyagai ns tM r . T urnl eyand H a rp er’s , al l egi ng the fol l ow i ng t or tcl ai m s : I nt ent i onal I nfl i ct i on of Em ot i onal D i s tr es s ( C ount1) ; I nvas i on ofP l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m for i nv asi on of p ri vacyi s based o n thr ee t heo ri es: 2 app ropri at i on , i ntrusi on i nto secl usi on , and pu bli cat i on of p ri vate fact s. -5- Pr i vacy( C ountI I ) ; V i ol at i on of O kl a. St at . t i t . 21, § 839. 1 ( C ountI I I ) ; Fr audul ent 2 /Fa lse M isr ep rese n tat ion (C o u n t I V ); C o n stru cti v e F rau d , F rau d an d D ec eit(C o u n t V ); U nj us tE nr i chment( C ountV I ) ; and N egl i gentH i r i ng, R et ent i on, and Supervi s i on (C o u n t V II ). O n D ecem ber 22, 2005 , the d i stri ctcou rtenter ed an order grant i ng D efen dan t s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n a ll cla im s. T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t D e f e n d a n ts e n jo y e d F irst A m e n d m e n t p ro tec tio n b e c a u se th e T u rn ley P h o to w a s ta k e n in a p u b lic pl ace fora new s w or thyart i cl e and, al t ernat i vel y , thats um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at e on the mer i t s of ea ch t or tcl ai m . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. O n ap peal, P l ai nti ffs assertthat the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in grant i ng D efen dan t s’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. W e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t de novo , a p p lyin g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Mo u n ta in W es tMi nes , I

nc. v. C l eve land- C l i

f f s I r on C o. , 4 7 0 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the af fi davi t s , i f any , s how that th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . T he i nqui ryes s ent i al l ydet erm i nes i f t here i s a need for tri al , or w hetherthe ev i den ce “i s so one-si ded that one p artym ust pr evai l as a mat t erof l aw . ” A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ).-6-

W h e n e x a m in in g th e u n d e rly in g f a c ts o f th e c a se , the C o u rt is c o g n iza n t th a t all in f e re n c e s m u st b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rtya n d th a t it m a yn o t m a k e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s o r w e ig h th e e v id e n c e . M ats ushita E l ec. Indus. C o . v. Ze n ith R a d io , 4 7 5 U .S . 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (1 9 8 6 ). F u rth e r, th e C o u rt h a s “ d isc re tio n to aff i r m on anygr ound adequa t el ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, s o l ong as the part i es have had a f ai roppor tuni tyt o addr es s thatgr ound. ” C ha m pa gn e Metals v. Ken-M ac Met als , I nc. , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 8 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). B efor e r eac hi ng anycons t i tut i onal ques t i on, “fe der al court s m us tcons i der noncons t i tut i onal gr ounds fordeci s i on. ” Jean v . N el s on , 4 7 2 U .S . 8 4 6 , 8 5 4 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 2 9 9 2 , 2 9 9 7 (1 9 8 5 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ar dm an , 2 9 7 F . 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2002) . B eca us e w e det erm i ne thatnone of the t or tcl ai m s as s ert ed i n Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Second A m ended Com pl ai ntcan s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent , w e dec l i ne t o cons i derw hether D e f e n d a n ts’ a c tio n s w e re p riv ileg e d u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. A . Intenti on al I

n fl i cti on of E m otion al D istress O kl ahoma has adopt ed s ect i on 46 of the R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS (1 9 7 7 ). See Mi l l erv. Mi l l er , 9 5 6 P . 2 d 8 8 7 , 9 0 0 (O k la. 1 9 9 8 ). A n ac ti o n fo r th is t o rt w il l l ie on lyw h ere there is ex tr em e a n d o u tr ag eo u s co n d u ct co u p led w ith sev ere e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . I

d. L i abil i tyhas bee n fo un d o nlyw here the co nd uct has been so outr ageous i n char act er , and s o extr eme i n degr ee, as t o go bey ond al l pos s i bl e bounds of dec ency , and t o be r egar ded as a tr o c i o u s , a n d u t t e r l y i n t o l e r a b l e i n a c i v i l i z e d c o m m u n i ty. G e n e ra lly , the c a se is o n e in w h ich th e re c itatio n o f th e f a c ts to a n a v e ra g e m e m b e r o f th e c o m m u n ityw o u ld a ro u se h is-7- r e s e n t me n ta g a i n s tth e a c t o r , a n d l e a d h i m t o e x c l a i m, ‘O u tr a g e o u s !’ . . . I d. at901 ( quot i ng R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 46 cmt . d) . A l s o, the D efe ndant s ’ conductm us tbe “c ons i der ed i n the s ett i ng i n w hi ch the conduc toccurr ed. ” C hel l en v. John Pi ckle C o. , 446 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1292 ( N . D . O kl a. 2006) ( ci t i ng E ddy v . Br o wn , 7 1 5 P .2 d 7 4 , 7 7 (O k la . 1 9 8 6 )) . T he d i stri ctcou rtact s as a gat ekeep er t o d et erm i ne w hetherthe D efen dan t s’ conductm ayr eas onabl ybe r egar ded as s uffi ci ent l yextr eme and outr ageous and w hether s e v e re e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s c a n b e f o u n d b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e . Mi l l er , 956 P. 2d at901; B r eedon v . League Ser vs . C or p. , 575 P. 2d 1374, 1377 ( O kl a. 1978) ; s ee R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 46 cmt . h. I f the courtfi nds thatr eas onabl e peopl e w oul d di ffe r in a n a s s e s s m e n t o f

th is is s u e , th e n th e to rt c la im m a yb e s u b m itte d to a ju ry. See, e. g. , B r eedon , 575 P. 2d at1377. H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtfound thatthe Turnl eyPhot o w as notoutr ageous . I tbas ed i t s deci s i on on the fa ctthatthe phot o acc ur at el ydepi ct s the exac ti m age thatPl ai nt i ffs chos e t o expos e t o appr oxi m at el y1200 peopl e w ho att ended Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s funer al . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o poi nt ed outthatPl ai nt i ffs m ade the deci s i on t o have a n open ca s ketatthe fune r al beca us e Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s “bodyl ooked fi ne, ” and f

ur therfound thatthe mer e fa ctthatthe phot ogr aph w as of a de cea s ed per s on w a s n o t e n o u g h to c o n s titu te o u tr a g e o u s c o n d u c t. P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t w h e th e r th e p h o to g ra p h w a s, in a n d o f itse lf , “g ro tes q u e ” is im m a ter ial. In ste a d , P lain tiff s u rg e th a t itw a s o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t f o r M r. T u rn ley t o-8-

di s r egar d s peci fi c i ns truct i ons fr om M r . St ephens nott o phot ogr aph the open c as ketat th e f u n e ra l. B e c a u se th is m a ter ial f a c t is in d isp u te— M r. T u rn ley de n ies th a t th is condi t i on w as pl ace d on hi s att endanc e— Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nt ai n thats um m aryj udgm entw as i nappr opr i at e bec aus e r eas onabl e mi nds coul d di ffe raboutw hetherM r . St ephens r el ay ed thi s condi t i on and ther efor e, w hetherM r . T urnl eyi gnor ed the condi t i on w hen he t ook the p ho t og raphs. W e conc l ude thatnei therthe phot ogr aph, northe al l eged br eac h of an a gr eement byM r . T urnl eycons t i tut ed conduc tthatw as s o extr eme and outr ageous “as t o go b e y o n d a ll p o ss ib le b o u n d s o f d e c e n c y , an d to b e re g a rd e d a s a tro c io u s, a n d u tterly i nt ol er abl e i n a ci vi l i zed c om m uni ty . ” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 4 6 c m t. d . T he fa ctthatthe phot ogr aph w as of a de cea s ed’ s bodyi s not , s t andi ng al one, o u tr a g e o u s , e v e n if

it w a s u n a u th o ri z e d . See Cox Tex. N ew s papers , L. P . v. W

oot t en , 59 S. W . 3d 717, 724 ( T ex. A pp. 2001) ( “Taki ng pi ctur es of a de ad bodyi s noti nt ol er abl e; i n fac t , s uch pi ctur es ar e fr equent l yt aken i n a var i etyof s i tuat i ons . Publ i cat i on of the r atherdi gni fi ed, al bei tunauthor i zed, pi ctur es . . . w as notextr eme and outr ageous co n d u ct . . . . ”). N o r i s the fa ct th at th e p h o tog rap h w as u n au tho ri ze d tr an sfo rm M r. T u rn le y ’s a c tio n s in to o u tr a g e o u s c o n d u c t. See Lof tv. Ful l er , 408 So. 2d 619, 621–22 (Fl a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 81 ) ( fi nd i ng po rtray al of d eceased fa m i l ym em ber i n b oo k as a

“ g h o s t,” w ith o u t p e rm is s io n f ro m h is f

a m ily, d id n o t a m o u n t to o u tr a g e o u s c o n d u c t) . F u rth e r, itis u n d isp u ted th a t th e p h o to g ra p h a c c u ra telyre f lec ts th e im a g e o f

S g t. B ri n le e ’s f

u n e ra l a n d o p e n c a s k e t, a s s e e n b yth e 1 2 0 0 p e o p le in a tte n d a n c e . C om pa re-9-

W oot t en , 59 S. W . 3d at724 w ith R e id v . P ier c e C o u n ty , 961 P. 2d 333, 338 ( W as h. 1998) (f in d in g d isc lo su re o f

a u to p syp h o to g ra p h s o f d e c e a se d re lativ e s o u tra g e o u s). S u c h “ f a ir and accurat e m edia coverage o f of fi ci al pu bli c occa si on s i s i n the hi gh estand best in te re s t o f

th e p u b lic , [ a n d ] . . . c a n n o t b e tr e a te d a s a c tio n a b le u n d e r t h is ru b ri c .” W r ightv. G r ove Sun New s paperC o. , 8 7 3 P . 2 d 9 8 3 , 9 9 0 ( Ok l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . Be c a u s e we a g r e e wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth a tDe f e n d a n t s ’ a c t i o n s d i d n o tr i s e t o th e l e v e l o f e x tr e me a n d o u tr a g e o u s c o n d u c t , s u mma r yj u d g me n twa s a p p r o p r i a t e o n th i s t o r tc l a i m. B . I nvas i on of

P r i vacy Pl ai nt i ffs as s ertthr ee of the fourbr anche s of the t or tof i nvas i on of pr i vacy : ( 1) a p p ro p ri a tio n ; ( 2 ) p u b lic a tio n o f p ri v a te f

a c ts ; a n d (3 ) i n tru s io n u p o n s e c lu s io n . See R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS §§ 652A –E ( 1977) ( des cr i bi ng the di ffe r enttypes of p ri v a c yto rt s ). I n a d d itio n , P la in tif f s a s s e rt a c la im u n d e r O k la . S ta t. tit. 2 1 , § 8 3 9 .1 . F o r th e se c laim s, P lain tiff s re lyg e n e ra llyo n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in N ati on al Archives & R ecords A dm i nis trat i on v. Favis h , w hi ch hel d thatthe pr i vacy e x e m p tio n in th e F re e d o m o f In f o rm a tio n A c t (“ F O IA ” ) re c o g n ize s s u rv iv in g f a m ily m ember s ’ r i ghtt o per s onal pr i vacyw i th r es pectt o thei rcl os e r el at i ve’ s death- s cene i m ages . 541 U . S. 157, 124 S. C t . 1570 ( 2004) . T hatcas e i nvol ved a pr i vat e ci t i zen w h o req u ested p rod u cti o n u n d er the F O IA o f d ea th-sce n e p h o tog rap h s o f V ince F o ster, d e p u ty co u n s e l to P re s id e n t C lin to n , w h o w a s f o u n d d e a d o f

a n a p p a re n t s u ic id e . Pl ai nt i ffs part i cul ar l yr el yon l anguage i n thatcas e thatthe comm on l aw has l ong-10-

r ecogni zed “ a fa m i l y ’ s contr ol overthe bodyand dea th i m ages of the dec eas ed. ” Favis h , 541 U . S. at168; 124 S. C t . at1578. Favis h i s i nappl i cabl e t o thi s anal y s i s beca us e i tr el i es on a s t atut orypr i vacyr i ght u n d e rth e F OI A, n o ta c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o ri n v a s i o n o f

p r i v a c y . I n f

a c t , th e S u p r e me C our tobs erved i n Favis h th a t“ th e s t a tu t o ryp r i v a c yr i g h tp r o t e c t e d b yEx e mp t i o n 7 ( C) goes bey ond the comm on l aw and the C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. at170, 124 S. C tat1579 ( ci t i ng U nited S tates D ep’tof Just i ce v. R epo rt ers C om m . f or Freedom of the P ress , 489 U . S. 749, 762, 109 S. C t . 1468, 1476 ( 1989) ) . L i kew i s e, the C our ts t at ed i n R epo rt ers C om m i t t ee that “[t ]he que st i on of the st atutorym eaning o f pri vacyun der the F O IA i s, of cour s e, notthe s ame as the ques t i on w hethera t or tact i on m i ghtl i e fori nvas i on of pr i vacyorthe ques t i on w hetheran i ndi vi dual ’ s i nt er es ti n pr i vacyi s pr ot ect ed bythe C ons t i tut i on. ” R epor t ers C om m i t t ee , 489 U . S. at763 n. 13; 109 S. C t . at1476. H er e, the C our tw i l l l i m i ti t s r el i ance t o the ca s e l aw cons trui ng the t or tof i nvas i on of pr i vacy a n d th e s p e c if

ic O k la h o m a s ta tu te a t is s u e . M or eover , the Supr eme C our t ’ s di s cus s i on i n Favis h aboutthe cul tur al hi s t or yof bur i al r i ght s of the dec eas ed and s ur vi vi ng fami l ym ember s i s i nappos i t e t o the fa ct s of this case . T h e C o u rtref ere n ce s “o u tr ag e a t seeing the b o d ies o f A m erican so ldiers m ut i l at ed and dr agged thr ough the s tr eet s , ” Favis h , 541 U . S. at168, 124 S. C t . at1578, as a moder n exampl e of “ the i nt er es t s dece ntpeopl e have forthos e w hom theyhave l os t . ” Id . T h is typ e o f in tru sio n a n d e x p lo itatio n o f th e f a m ily ’s g rie f

h a s tra d iti o n a lly b e e n c o n s id e re d a v io la tio n o f th e f a m ily’s p ri v a c yri g h ts . I d. I ndeed, al l of the ca s esSee, e. g. , i d. a t 1 6 1 , 1 2 4 S . C t. at 1 5 7 4 ; R e id v . P ier c e C o u n ty , 961 P. 2d 3 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 (W a sh . 1 9 9 8 ); McC am br i dge v. C i t y of Li t t l e Rock , 766 S. W . 2d 909, 915 ( A r k. 1 9 8 9 ); c .f. B az em or e v. Savannah H os p. , 155 S. E . 194 ( G a. 1930) ( fi ndi ng i nvas i on of pr i vacyw her e, aft erper form i ng s ur geryon a babyborn w i th hi s hearton the out s i de of hi s body , hos pi t al empl oy ees al l ow ed a phot ogr aphert o phot ogr aph the chi l d’ s bodyand a n e w s p a p e r t o re p o rt o n th e b a b y ’s c o n d itio n , u n b e k n o w n s t to th e p a re n ts .), c a lledin to ques t i on by W

at ers v. F l eetw ood , 9 1 S .E .2 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 8 (G a . 1 9 5 6 ). B uts ee Bre m m erv. Jour nal

- Tri bune Publ ’

g C o. , 76 N . W . 2d 762, 766–67 ( I ow a 1956) ( expl ai ni ng that B azem ore w as an extr eme se tof fa ct s and thatthe maj or i tyof court s have de cl i ned t o fi nd lia b ility w h e n th e p re s s p u b lis h d e ta ils o f g ru e s o m e d e a th s c e n e s ). -11- ci t ed bythe C our ti n s uppor tof i t s acknow l edgmentthatthe comm on l aw has re c o g n ize d a f

a m ily ’s r ig h t to c o n tro l th e d e a th im a g e s o f th e d e c e a se d , inv o lv e d e a th im a g e s th a t a re g ru e s o m e a n d n o n e in v o lv e im a g e s d is p la y e d a t a p u b lic f u n e ra l. See i d. a t 1 6 9 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 5 7 8

– 7 9 (c o lle c tin g c a s e s ). C ou rt s that have fo un d an i nv asi on of p ri vacyhav e do ne so w hen the case i nv olves deat h-scene i m ages such as cr i m e scene o r aut op syph otographs. T he 3 p h o to g ra p h s h e re a re n o t d e a th -sc e n e p h o to g ra p h s, b u t im a g e s o f S g t. B rin lee in h is m i l i t aryuni form thatacc ur at el ydepi ctthe i m age s een bythos e w ho att ended hi s funer al to p aytheir resp ec ts. C o u p led w ith the p u b li c n ature o f th is fu n era l, the p h o tog rap h s are di s t i ngui s habl e fr om thos e ati s s ue i n Favis h . W e no w add res s the spec i fi c t heo ri es of l i abil i tyassert ed b yP l ai nti ffs. 1 . A p p r o p r ia ti o n a n d O k la . S ta t. A n n . ti t. 2 1 , § 8 3 9 .1 Ok l a h o ma h a s c o d i f

i e d th e c a u s e o f

a c t i o n f o ra p p r o p r i a t i o n o f

a p e r s o n ’ s n a me orl i kenes s i n O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 21, § 839. 1 ( 2002) . U nderthe R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 6 5 2 C, “ [ o ] n e wh o a p p r o p r i a t e s t o h i s o wn u s e o rb e n e f i tth e n a me-12-

o r l ik e n e s s o f

a n o th e r i s s u b

je c t to lia b ility to th e o th e r f o r i n v a s io n o f

h is p ri v a c y .” Pl ai nt i ffs appea rt o br i ng s epar at e cl ai m s forappr opr i at i on underboth the comm on l aw an d statu torylaw , d esp it e the fa ct th at th e statute o v erlap s w ith the R estatem en t’ s f o rm u la tio n o f

th e c a u s e o f

a c tio n . See Le Fl or e v. R ef l ect i ons of

Tul s a, I nc. , 708 P. 2d 10 68 , 10 74 (O kla. 19 85 ) ( con strui ng cl ai m for app ropri at i on un der the R est at em ent as a cl ai m underO kl ahoma’ s appr opr i at i on s t atut e) . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw i th r egar d t o ei thers our ce of l aw on appr opr i at i on. C om m entd t o the R ES TAT EMEN T § 652C i s i ns truct i ve: N o one has the r i ghtt o obj ectm er el ybeca us e hi s name or h is a p p e a ra n c e is b ro u g h t b e f o re th e p u b lic, sin c e n e ith e r is in a n yw a ya p riv a te m a tter a n d b o th a re o p e n to p u b lic obs ervat i on. I ti s onl yw hen the publ i ci tyi s gi ven forthe purpos e of a ppr opr i at i ng t o the def endant ’ s benef

i tthe comm er ci al orotherval ues as s oci at ed w i th the name orthe l i kenes s thatthe r i ghtof pr i vacyi s i nvaded. T he fa ctthat the def endanti s engage d i n the bus i nes s of publ i cat i on, for e x a m p le o f

a n e w sp a p e r, o u t o f

w h ich h e m a k e s o r se e k s to m ake a pr ofi t , i s notenough t o m ake the i nci dent al publ i cat i on a comm er ci al us e of the name orl i kenes s . T hus a new s paper , al though i ti s nota phi l anthr opi c i ns t i tut i on, does notbecome l i abl e underthe rul e s t at ed i n thi s Sect i on t o ev eryperson w ho se nam e or l i ken ess i tpu bli shes. T he C our tconcl udes thatthi s comm entfr om the R es t at ements quar el yappl i es t o the f a c ts p re s e n te d h e re . H

a rp er’s is n o t li a b le u n d e r a n a p p ro p ria tio n th e o rysim p ly beca us e i ts oughtt o m ake a pr ofi tvi a the ci r cul at i on of i t s m agaz i ne w hen i tpubl i s hed the phot o es s aythati ncl uded the Turnl eyPhot o.-13-

W ith re g a rd to th e sta tu te, th e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is cl ai m beca us e ther e w as no evi dence of “a dvert i s i ng. ” I n s o hol di ng, the courts t at ed thatO kl ahoma had, i n the pas t , s oughtgui dance fr om N ew Y or k l aw w hen i nt erpr et i ng th is s ta tu te b e c a u s e it w a s p a tte rn e d a f te r a s im ila r N e w Y o rk la w . See Le Fl or e v. R ef l ect i ons of

Tul s a, I nc. , 7 0 8 P .2 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 4 (O k la. 1 9 8 5 ) (d isc u ss in g th e sim ilarity betw een N ew Y or k’ s appr opr i at i on s t atut e and § 839. 2 and l ooki ng t o N ew Y or k cas es f o r g u id a n c e ). N e w Y o rk law h a s m a d e c lea r th a t rig h t to p riv a c ysta tu tes d o n o t ap p ly t o new s w or thyevent s orm att er s of publ i c conc ern beca us e i ti s notdeemed forthe p u rp o s e s o f

a d v e rt is in g o r t ra d e . See, e. g. , Messenger ex rel . Messenger v. G runer + Ja h r P rinti n g& P u b l’

g , 9 4 N .Y .2 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 1 (N .Y . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e N e w Y o rk C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

u rth e r h e ld th a t “w h e re a p lain tiff ’s p ictu re is u se d to ill u stra te a n a rticle o n a m a tter o f p u b lic in ter e st, th e re c a n b e n o liab ili ty

. . . unl es s the pi ctur e has no r eal r el at i ons hi p t o the art i cl e orthe art i cl e i s an advert i s ementi n di s gui s e. ” I d. a t 4 4 2 . S g t. B rin lee ’s f u n e ra l w a s a m a tter o f

p u b lic in ter e st. L o c a l an d re g io n a l n e w sp a p e rs p rin ted sto rie s a n d p h o to g ra p h s a b o u t h is d e a th and fun eral . T here w as part i culari nter esti n the st orysi nce S gt. B ri nlee w as the fir st m e m b e r o f

th e O k la h o m a N a tio n a l G u a rd to b e k ille d in a c tio n s in c e th e K o re a n W a r. T her e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tthatthe Turnl eyPhot o, oranyof the otherphot ogr aphs t aken, w er e notr el at ed t o the phot o- es s aythatconce rned gr i evi ng i n the U ni t ed St at es and I r aq overdeaths caus ed bythe w ari n I r aq. A nd, the fa ctthatthe phot o es s ayw as pr om ot ed and s ol d t o anotherpubl i cat i on does notr enderi tan adve r t i s ementundert he-14-

s ta tu te . Mes s enger , 94 N . Y . 2d at442 ( “[T] he fa ctthata publ i cat i on m ayhave us ed a per s on’ s name orl i kenes s ‘ s ol el yorpr i m ar i l yt o i ncr eas e the ci r cul at i on’ of a new s w or thyart i cl e— and thus t o i ncr eas e pr ofi t s — does notm ean thatthe name or l i kenes s has been us ed fortr ade purpos es w i thi n the meani ng of the s t atut e. ”) . T he T urnl eyPhot o di d notcons t i tut e an appr opr i at i on of Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s l i kenes s for comm er ci al purpos es underei therthe R es t at ementorthe s t atut e and s um m aryj udgm ent w as approp ri at e on these cl ai m s. 2 . P u b li ca ti o n o f P riva te F a cts I n or dert o r ecove rfori nvas i on of pr i vacybypubl i cat i on of pr i vat e fa ct s , the p u b lica tio n m u st: (1 ) b e h ig h lyo f f e n siv e to a re a so n a b le p e rso n ; (2 ) c o n tain p riv a te f a c ts; (3 ) b e a p u b lic d isc lo su re o f p riv a te f

a c ts; a n d (4 ) n o t b e o f

leg iti m a te c o n c e rn to o th e rs . G u in n v . C h u rc h o f C h ris t o

f C o lli n sv ill e , 775 P. 2d 766, 781 ( O kl a. 1989) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatPl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthe Turnl eyPhot o cont ai ned p ri v a te f a c ts a b o u t th e irliv e s o r t h a t th e re w a s a p u b lic d is c lo s u re o f a p ri v a te f

a c t. Fur ther , the di s tr i ctcourtfound thatbeca us e the fune r al w as a new s w or thyevent , i tw as of legi t i m at e con cern t o o thers, especi al l ycon si deri ng the fa ctthat this w as the fir st O k laho m a N ati o n al G u ard sm an to d ie i n co m b at si n ce the K o rea n W ar. P lain tiff s a rg u e o n a p p e a l th a t th e f a m ily ’s m o u rn in g o v e r S g t. B rin lee ’s d e a th w a s a d e e p lyp riv a te m a n n e r. T h e ya lso m a in tain th a t M r. T u rn ley ac k n o w led g e d th is bycont act i ng M r . St ephens t o r eques tperm i s s i on t o att end, w hi ch he w oul d nothave d o n e h a d h e b e liev e d it t o b e a p u b lic e v e n t. D e f e n d a n ts re sp o n d th a t u n d e r C o m m e n t a-15-

t o R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 652D , the Pl ai nt i ffs l eftthemsel ves “open t o t he publ i c ey e. ” W e agr ee w i th D efe ndant s thatPl ai nt i ffs opened up the fune r al s cene t o the publ i c ey e and c an not , ther efor e, es t abl i s h thatD efe ndant s di s cl os ed pr i vat e fa ct s by publ i s hi ng the Turnl eyPhot o. T he l ocal new s papernot i fi ed the publ i c i n advanc e of the tim e a n d p lac e o f

S g t. B rin lee ’s f

u n e ra l, an d it w a s h e ld in a h ig h sc h o o l g ym n a siu m to a c c o m m o d a te th e lar g e c ro w d e x p e c ted to a tten d . G o v e rn o r H e n rysp o k e a t th e f u n e ra l, w hi ch w as att ended by1200 peopl e. M os tatt endee s exi t ed the fune r al byfi r s tfi l i ng p a s t S g t. B ri n le e ’s o p e n c a s k e t. N u m e ro u s a re a n e w s p a p e rs p u b lis h e d s to ri e s a b o u t S g t. B rin lee ’s d e a th a n d f

u n e ra l. T h e se f

a c ts b e lie th e n o tio n th a t th e T u rn ley P h o to re v e a led in f

o rm a tio n th a t w a s p riv a te a n d su m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n th is c l a i m. 3. I nt rus i on U pon S ecl usi on “O ne w ho i nt ent i onal l yi ntrudes , phy s i cal l yorotherw i s e, upon the s ol i tude or s ecl us i on of anotherorhi s pr i vat e af fai r s orconce rns , i s s ubj ectt o l i abi l i tyt o the other f o r in v a sio n o f

h is p riv a c y , if th e in tru sio n w o u ld b e h ig h lyo f f e n siv e to a re a so n a b le per s on. ” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 6 5 2 B ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Th e Ok l a h o ma S u p r e me C o u rth as re co g n ized the f o ll o w ing tw o n ec essa ryelem en ts of this clai m : ( 1 ) a n o n c o n s e n s u a l in tru s io n , (2 ) w h ic h is h ig h ly o f f e n s iv e to a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n . See D ubbs v. H

ead Star t , I nc. , 336 F. 3d 1194, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng G i lm or e v. E nogex, I

nc. , 8 7 8 P .2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 (O k la. 1 9 9 4 )). P u b lica tio n is n o t n e c e ss a ryto m a in tain-16-

a n a c tio n f

o r t h is to rt ; th e in tru s io n its e lf c re a te s lia b ility. See R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) O F T ORTS § 6 5 2 B c m t. b . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t a b o u twh e th e rM r . Tu r n l e yi n tru d e d i n t o th e p r i v a t e a f f a i r s o f P l a i n t i f f s f o rth e s a me r eas ons thats um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e on the otherpr i vacycl ai m s . E ven i f the C our tas s um es Pl ai nt i ffs can meetthei rbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a genui ne i s s ue of m a ter ial f

a c t th a t an in tru sio n o c c u rre d , the re is n o e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich a re a so n a b le j u ryc o u l d c o n c l u d e th a tth e i n tru s i o n wa s h i g h l yo f f e n s i v e t o a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n . As al r eadydi s cus s ed, the phot ogr aphs acc ur at el ydepi ct ed a f uner al thatPl ai nt i ffs hel d out to th e p u b lic. D e tails a b o u t th e f u n e ra l w e re p u b lish e d in th e lo c a l n e w sp a p e r a n d it w as hel d i n a hi gh s chool gym nas i um i n or dert o acc om m odat e the 1200 peopl e w ho att ended, w hi ch i ncl uded the G overnorof O kl ahoma. M r . T urnl eyt ook the phot ogr aphs from an area of the high scho ol audi t ori um that w as speci fi cal l ydesi gn at ed fo r the p res s and otherphot ogr apher s w er e pr es ent . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s u mma ryj u d g me n tt o De f e n d a n t s o n th i s c l a i m. C . Fra u d Cla im s Pl ai nt i ffs as s ert ed cl ai m s forfr audul entorfal s e r epr es ent at i on and cons truct i ve fr aud bas ed on M r . T urnl ey ’ s conver s at i on w i th M r . St ephens i n w hi ch Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue M r . St ephens pl ace d the s peci fi c condi t i on on M r . T urnl ey ’ s att endanc e atthe fune r al th a t h e n o t p h o to g ra p h th e o p e n c a sk e t. T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to D efe ndant s on t hes e cl ai m s beca us e, bas ed on the uncontr overt ed fa ct s , any-17-

m i s r epr es ent at i on orfr aud comm i t t ed byM r . T urnl eyw as m ade t ow ar d M r . St ephens and notthe Pl ai nt i ffs i n thi s m att er . Pl ai nt i ffs appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derand ar gue that i tm i sappli ed p ri ncipl es of ag encyl aw i n g rant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent on t hese cl ai m s.P l ai nti ffs do no tal l ege a c on tractexis t ed b et w een the part i es, bu ti nst ead b ase th e se c laim s o n a n u n k e p t p ro m ise . O k lah o m a law re q u ire s th e f o llo w in g e lem e n ts to es t abl i s h a cl ai m fora fa l s e orfr audul entm i s r epr es ent at i on: ( 1) the def endantm ade a m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on; ( 2) thatw as fal s e; ( 3) the def endantm ade the m i s r epr es ent at i on know i ng i tw as fal s e, ori n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the truth; ( 4) the defe ndantm ade the r epr es ent at i on w i th the i nt ent i on thati ts houl d be ac t ed upon byt he pl ai nt i ff; ( 5) the pl ai nt i ff a ct ed i n r el i ance upon i t ; and ( 6) pl ai nt i ff ther ebys uffe r ed in ju ry. St ur

geon v. R ether

f or d P ubl ’ ns , I

nc. , 987 P. 2d 1218, 1228 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1999) ( ci t i ng R am s ey v . Fow l er , 3 0 8 P .2 d 6 5 4 , 6 5 6 (O k la . 1 9 5 7 )) . E ven i f Pl ai nt i ffs ar e corr ectthatthe di s tr i ctcourtm i s appl i ed age ncypr i nci pl es w hen i tgrant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent on t he fraud cl ai m s, P l ai nti ffs are unab l e t o est abli sh thatw hen M r . T urnl eyal l egedl ypr om i s ed M r . St ephens thathe w oul d notphot ogr aph the open c as ket , he di d noti nt end t o per form thatpr om i s e. U nderO kl ahoma l aw , t he gener al rul e i s thatw hen a f al s e r epr es ent at i on i s the bas i s of the fr aud, that re p re se n tatio n m u st re late to e x istin g f a c ts o r p re v io u slye x istin g f a c ts, a n d n o t to p ro m is e s o f

s o m e f u tu re a c t. R ober t

s v. W el l s Far go A G C r edi tC or

p. , 990 F. 2d 1169, 1 1 7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). A n e x c e p tio n to th is ru le e x ists w h e re su c h a p ro m ise to a c t in-18-

th e f u tu re is m a d e w ith th e in te n tio n n o t to p e rf o rm a n d w ith th e in te n t to d e c e iv e . I d. “The gi s tof the rul e i s notthe br eac h of pr om i s e butthe fr audul enti nt entof the pr om i s oratthe t i m e the pl edge i s m ade nott o per form the pr om i s e s o m ade a nd ther eby dece i ve the pr om i s ee. ” C i tat i on C o. R eal tors , I nc. v. Lyon , 610 P. 2d 788, 790 ( O kl a. 1 9 8 0 ). Pl ai nt i ffs ar e unabl e t o poi ntthe C our tt o evi dence of M r . T urnl ey ’ s i nt entatt he t i m e he s poke t o M r . St ephens on the phone pr i ort o the fune r al . I ns t ead, theyar gue thatthe i s s ue i s one of c r edi bi l i ty , w hi ch s houl d be made bya j ury . Y etPl ai nt i ffs pr oduce no e vi dence r efut i ng M r . T urnl ey ’ s s t at ed l ack of i nt ent , noranyevi dence d isp u tin g th e c re d ib ili tyo f M r. T u rn ley’s sta tem e n t th a t h e lac k e d su c h in ten t. Fur therm or e, the cl ai m s fai l beca us e Pl ai nt i ffs ar e unabl e t o es t abl i s h thatthey act ed in r el i ance u po n an yst at em ent al l eged l ym ade b yM r. T urnl ey . W hil e t here i s a di s put ed fa ctaboutw hetherM r . T urnl eyatl eas ti m pl i ci t l yagr eed nott o phot ogr aph Sgt . B r i nl ee’ s open ca s ketas a condi t i on of hi s att endanc e atthe fune r al , other phot ogr apher s w er e pr es entatthe fune r al . A nd ther e i s no evi dence thatthe medi a w as re q u ire d to c o n tac t M r. S tep h e n s a h e a d o f tim e to o b tain p e rm iss io n to a tten d . W h ile s om e mem ber s of the publ i c di d i nqui r e w i th St ephens M emori al C hapel aboutw hether the pr es s w oul d be al l ow ed t o att end the fune r al , ther e i s no evi dence thatthi s w as r equi r ed. T he fune r al w as open t o the publ i c, and ther e w er e no s i gns l i m i t i ng the phot ogr apher s ’ perm i s s i on t o phot ogr aph the fune r al . T hes e fa ct s r evea l no genui ne issue o f m aterial fa ct ab o u t w h ethe r P lai n ti ff s rea so n ab lyreli ed o n a p rom ise b yM r.-19-

T urnl eyi n al l ow i ng hi m t o att end as a mem berof the pr es s . Sum m aryj udgm enti s thus app ropri at e on P l ai nti ffs’ fr aud cl ai m s. D . U nj us t Enric hm e nt P lain tiff s’ c laim f

o r u n ju st e n ric h m e n t is b a se d o n th e a lleg a tio n th a t D e f e n d a n ts w er e unj us t l yenr i ched bythe publ i cat i on and pr om ot i on of the Turnl eyPhot o. “The ter m ‘u n ju st e n ric h m e n t’ d e sc rib e s a c o n d iti o n re su lti n g f ro m th e f

a ilu re o f a p a rtyto m ake r es t i tut i on i n ci r cumst ance s w her e i ti s i nequi t abl e. ” N. C. Cor f f P’s h i p v . OXY U SA , I nc. , 9 2 9 P .2 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 5 (O k la. C iv . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); s ee al s o Lapki n v. G ar land B l oodw or th, I

nc. , 23 P . 3d 95 8, 96 1 (O kla. C i v. A pp . 20 00 ). U njustenri chm ent i s a theoryof r ecove r yand r equi r es “enr i chmentt o anothercoupl ed w i th a r es ul t i ng i nj us t i ce. ” N

.C . C o rff P ’Sh ip , 929 P. 2d at295. A s the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yr eas oned, ther e i s no evi dence her e of a nyadvant age t o H a rp er’s orM r . T urnl eyatthe expe ns e of Pl ai nt i ffs . L i kew i s e, ther e i s no evi dence of i nj us t i ce t o the Pl ai nt i ffs . Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthe phot o w as us ed t o pr om ot e the magazi ne and M r . T urnl eyatthe expe ns e of thei rr i ghtt o pr i vacy . A s thi s C our thas al r eadydet erm i ned, ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tw i th r egar d t o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r i ghtt o pr i vacycl ai m s . Sum m aryj udgm entw as a p p r o p r i a t e o n P l a i n t i f

f s ’ u n j u s te n r i c h me n tc l a i m. E. N e gl i ge nt H ir ing A n empl oy erm aybe hel d l i abl e i n O kl ahoma fornegl i genthi r i ng, s upervi s i on, or re te n tio n o f

a n e m p lo y e e . S e e Esc u e v . N . O k la . C o ll. , 4 5 0 F . 3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); N . H. v. P r es byt er i an C hur ch (U .S .A .) , 998 P. 2d 592, 600 ( O kl a. 1999) . T he-20-

empl oy erm aybe l i abl e, “i f— atthe cr i t i cal t i m e of the t or t i ous i nci dent

— the empl oy er h a d re a s o n to b e lie v e th a t th e p e rs o n w o u ld c re a te a n u n d u e ri s k o f h a rm to o th e rs . E m p lo y e rs a re h e ld liab le f o r th e ir p rio r k n o w led g e o f th e se rv a n t’s p ro p e n sityto comm i tthe veryharm forw hi ch damages ar e s ought . ” P r es byt er i an C hur ch (U .S .A .) , 9 9 8 P .2 d a t 6 0 0 . B eca us e w e fi nd thats um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e on al l of P la in tif f s ’ u n d e rl y in g c la im s , H arper’s m a yn o t b e f

o u n d liab le to P lain tiff

s b a se d o n its hi r i ng, s upervi s i on, orr et ent i on of M r . T urnl ey . Fur ther , Pl ai nt i ffs do notpoi ntt o any e v i d e n c e o f

p r i o rk n o w l e d g e b y H

a rp er’s o f

a n yp ro p e n sityb yM r. T u rn ley t o c o m m it a n yo f th e to rts a lleg e d a g a in st M r. T u rn ley i n th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. I I I . W hi l e i tcoul d be ar gued thatpubl i cat i on of the Turnl eyPhot o w i thoutpr i or author i zat i on w as i n poort as t e, forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed, i tdoes notcons t i tut e an act i onabl e cl ai m underanyof the theor i es advanc ed byPl ai nt i ffs . B eca us e w e conc l ude th a ts u mma r yj u d g me n twa s a p p r o p r i a t e o n e a c h o f th e Ok l a h o ma s t a t e t o r tc l a i ms assert ed b yP l ai nti ffs i n thi s act i on , w e need no tadd res s the F i rs tA m end m ent defense as s ert ed byD efe ndant s i n thi s appea l , nordo w e make anys t at ementas t o the mer i t s of th a t d e f e n se . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is a f

f irm e d . T h e m o tio n f

o r le a v e to fi l e an a m i cus br i ef byD enverPostC orpor at i on, M agaz i ne Publ i s her s of A m er i ca, N ew s paperA s s oci at i on of A m er i ca, N ew Y or k T i m es C om pany , O kl ahoma Publ i s hi ng Co mp a n y , P i c tu r e Ar c h i v e Co u n c i l o f Ame r i c a , Th e Re p o r t e r s Co mmi t t e e f o rF r e e d o m-21-

of the Pr es s and Tri bune C om panyi s gr ant ed.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

J ul i e A . R obi ns on D i s tr i ctJ udge