# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 32 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ji ll Dil la rd ; J es sa Seewal d; Ji ng er Vu ol o; Jo y Dug ga r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Ci ty of Sp rin gd al e, Ark an sa s; W as hi ng to n C ou nt y , Arka ns as ; Kat hy O'Kelle y ; Erne st Cat e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ri ck Hoyt, in hi s i nd iv id ua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

St ev e Zeg a; Bau er Pu bl is hi ng Co m pa ny, L .P.; Ba ue r Mag azi ne , L.P.; Bau er Me di a Gro up , Inc .; Ba ue r, In c.; Hei nr ic h B au er No rth Am eri ca, In c.; B au er Me di a Gro up USA, LLC; Doe s, 1 -1 0

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 32 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ji ll Dil la rd ; J es sa Seewal d; Ji ng er Vu ol o; Jo y Dug ga r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.Ci ty of Sp rin gd al e, Ark an sa s; W as hi ng to n C ou nt y , Arka ns as

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Kath y O'Kell ey , in he r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es ; Ern es t Ca te , in hi s

in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Ri ck Hoyt; St ev e Zeg a; Bau er Pu bl is hi ng Co m pa ny, L .P.; Ba ue r Mag azi ne , L.P.;
Bau er Me di a Gro up , Inc .; Ba ue r, In c.; Hei nr ic h B au er No rth Am eri ca, In c.; B au er

Med ia Grou p USA, LLC; Does , 1-1 0

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 18
Fi le d: Ju ly 12, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Pl ai nt iff -ap pe ll ees Ji ll Dil la rd , J es sa Seewal d, J in ge r Vuo lo , a nd Jo y Dug ga r
al le ge vi ol at io ns of th ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to pr iv acy an d of Ark an s a s t o r t la w i n

co nn ect io n wit h de fen da nt -ap pe ll an ts ’ de ci si on s to rel eas e in fo rm at io n id en t i f yin g
th em as vi ct im s of ch il dh oo d se xu al ab us e. The ap pe ll ees su ed se ve ral p a r t i e s an d

en ti ti es , b ut th is ap pe al co nc ern s t he ir c on st it ut io na l an d t or t cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ci ty o f
Sp rin gd al e (“ Ci ty”) of

fic ia ls Kath y O’ Kell ey an d Erne st Cat e, an d W as hi ng t o n

Co un ty (“ Co un ty”) of

fic ia l Rick Hoyt. O’ Kell ey , Cat e, an d Ho y t (c ol le ct iv el y , “ th e

-2

-of

fic ia ls ”) m o v ed to di sm is s th e ap pe ll ees ’ co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s on th e ba si s of

q u a l i f ie d im m un it y an d th e to rt cl ai m s on th e ba se s of qu al ifi ed an d st at ut or y
im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th ei r m ot io n. Bec au se we ag ree th at th e of fic ia ls 1

were n ot en ti tl ed to eit he r qu al ifi ed or s ta tu to ry im m un it y , we affi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

The ap pe ll e e s are si st ers an d st ars of th e po pu la r real it y sh ow 19 Ki ds an d

Co un ti ng

. The sh ow chro ni cl es th e li ve s of Jim Bo b and Mi ch el le Dug ga r an d th ei r

19 ch il dr en

. In 20 06

, th e ap pe ll ees , a s w e l l as th ei r si bl in gs an d pa ren ts

, were

in te rv ie wed as pa rt of a po li ce in ve st ig at io n in to se xu al m is co nd uc t by th e ap pe ll ees ’

br ot he r, Jo sh Dug g a r

. Th e ap pe ll ees were un de r th e ag e of 16 at th e ti m e of th e
al le ge d m is co nd uc t an d at th e ti m e of th e in ve st ig at io n. The po li ce pr o mise d th e

ap pe ll ees an d th ei r fam il y th at th ei r st at eme n ts wou ld rem ai n co nf id en ti al

. The

fam il y ’s st at em en ts were do cu m en te d in rep or ts by bo th th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t

an d t he Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t. Th e Co un ty pro se cu to r al so fil ed a Fam il y in

Need of Serv ic es (FINS) pe ti ti on pu rs ua nt to a req ue st by th e Ci ty po li ce. No ch arg es

were ev er fi le d a ga in st Jo sh

.

In 20 15

, a ta bl oi d pu bl is he r su bm it te d Free do m of In fo rm at io n Act (F O I A)

req ue st s to th e Ci ty an d Co un ty to acce ss th es e rep or ts

. On May 19

, 20 15

, th e ta bl oi d

pu bl is he d an art ic le na m in g Jo sh a s t h e ta rg et of an “ Und erag e Sex Pro be ” an d

pr om is ed mo re de ta il s to fo ll ow. Dil la rd v. Ci ty of Sp ri ng da le

, Ark.

, No.

5: 1 7

- c v- 05 08 9, 20 17 W L 43 92 04 9, at *1 (W. D. Ark

. Sep t. 29

, 20 17 ). The or ig in al

art ic le id en ti fie d Jo sh as th e pe rp et rat or an d un na m ed si st ers —l at er id en ti fie d as th e

ap pe ll ees —as th e vi ct im s. On May 20

, th e Ci ty rel eas ed it s rep or t to th e ta bl oi d; th e

ne xt da y , th e Co un ty rel eas ed it s rep or t as well

. O’ Kell ey , th e Ci ty Po li ce Ch ie f, an d

Cat e, th e Ci ty Att or ne y , di rect ed th e rel eas e of th e Ci ty’ s rep or t, whi le Hoyt, an

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-3

-of

fic er in th e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, di rect ed th e rel eas e of th e Co un ty’ s rep or t. The

ap pe ll ees de sc rib e th e rel eas ed Ci ty rep o r t

, f o r ex am pl e, as co nt ai ni ng “ gr ap hi c
de sc rip ti on s ab ou t th ei r m ol es ta ti o n

. ” C o mpl. at 17

, ¶ 58

, Dil la rd v. Ci ty of
Sp ri ng da le

, Ark.

, No. 5: 17 -cv -0 50 89 (W. D. Ark

. May 18

, 20 17 ), ECF No. 1. Tho ug h

th e ap pe ll ees ’ na m es were red act ed

, th e rep o r ts co nt ai ne d ot he r id en ti fy in g

in fo r mat i o n— su ch as th e ap pe ll ees ’ pa ren ts ’ na m es an d th e ap pe ll ees ’ ad dr es s an d

ag es

.

At th e di st ric t co ur t, th e o f f i c i a ls cl ai m ed FOIA req ui red th em to rel eas e th e

rep or ts in th e ti m e an d m an ne r in whi ch th ey di d. Howev er, th e ap pe ll ees al le ge d th at

th e of fic ia ls ha st il y a n d wro ng fu ll y rel eas ed th e rep or ts

. W e read th e ap pe ll ees ’

co m pl ai nt as al le gi ng th at th e of fic ia ls rel ea s e d t he rep or ts in res po ns e to pr es su re
fro m th e p res s i n a n e ffo rt t o p ro m ot e th e ap pe aran ce o f tr an sp aren cy

.

Fo ll owi ng th e of

fic ia ls ’ rel e a s e of th e rep or ts

, th e ta bl oi d pu bl is he d bo th

rep or ts

, as well as se ve ral sa la ci ou s art ic le s ba se d on th e rep or ts ’ co nt en t. Bec au se of

th e pu bl ic ’s pr io r kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e Dug ga r fam il y , th e no n- red act ed de ta il s— i.e.,

th e pa ren ts ’ na m es , th e vi ct im s’ ag es an d add res s— al lo wed read ers to as cert ai n th e

ap pe ll ees ’ ex act id en ti ti es . W hi le th e p re-d is cl os ur e Ma rch 19 art ic le in di cat ed th at

so m e of th e m an y D u g g a r c hi ld ren ha d be en ab us ed

, th e Mar ch 20 an d 21 rep or ts

co nf irmed th es e ru m or s an d en ab l ed th e ap pe ll ees to be sp eci fic al ly id en ti fie d. A

to rren t of m ed ia at te nt io n fo ll owe d, an d th e ap pe ll ees cl ai m th ey “ were su bjec te d to

sp it efu l an d ha rs h co m

m en ts an d ha ras sm en t on th e In te rn et an d in th ei r da il y li ve s.”

Co m pl

. at 20

, ¶ 68

. Jo y Dug ga r su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed a m ot io n in st at e co ur t to ex pu ng e

co pi es of th e Ci ty rep or t fro m th e pu bl ic reco rd ; th e co ur t gr an te d th is m ot io n on th e
ba si s th at Ark an sa s la w ha d pr oh ib it ed th ei r rel eas e. Non et he le ss , co pi es of th e rep or t

co nt in ue d t o c irc ul at e o nl in e.

The ap pe ll ees t h e n b r ou gh t th is su it in fed eral co ur t, al le gi ng th e of fic ia ls

vi ol at ed th ei r co ns ti tu ti on al an d co m m on la w rig ht s by di rect in g th e rep or ts ’ rel eas e.

-4

-Th e y s u e d u n d er 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d th e Ark an sa s Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (ACRA) fo r

vi ol at io ns of th ei r rig ht to pr iv acy an d un de r Ark an sa s to rt la w fo r in va si on of

pr iv acy—pu bl ic di sc lo su re of pr iv at e fact ; in va si on of pr iv acy—in tru si on up on

se cl us io n; an d ou tra ge

. The of fic ia ls m ov ed to di sm is s un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l 2

Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re to st at e a c l a i m, in vo ki ng th e pr ot ect io n of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y for th e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s an d q ua li fie d a nd st at ut or y im m un it y fo r th e

to rt cl ai m s. W it h reg ard to th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s, th ey arg ue d th e ap pe ll ees ha d no t

al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns , or , in th e al te rn at iv e, th at th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht at

is su e

— i

. e

. , th e rig ht to in fo rm at io na l pr iv acy—was no t “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d.” The

of fic ia ls re ne w th is arg um en t on ap pe al

, wit h an em ph as is on th e “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d”

el em en t. W it h reg ard to th e st at e la w cl ai m s, th ey arg ue d th at Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 21 -9

- 30 1 i m m un iz ed th em

fro m su it an d l ik ewis e ren ew th is arg um en t o n a pp eal

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Co ns ti tu ti on al

Cla ims

“ A de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y is an ap pe al a b l e f

in al de ci si on on ly to th e

ex te nt it tu rn s o n a n i ss ue of l aw. . . . At t hi s ea rly sta ge of t he li ti ga ti on , to warran t

rev ers al

, de fen da nt s mu s t s ho w th at th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e
face of th e co m

pl ai nt .” Dad

d v. Ano ka Ct

y. , 82 7 F.3 d 74 9, 75 4 (8 th C i r

. 20 16 )
(in te rn al q u o t a t io ns om it te d)

. “ [A] well -p le ad ed co m pl ai nt m ay pr oc eed ev en if it

st rik es a sa vv y jud ge th at act ua l pr oo f of th e fact s al le ge d is im pr ob ab le , and th at a

reco ve ry is ve ry rem ot e an d un li ke ly.” Bra de n v. W al -Ma rt St or es
, In c. , 58 8 F.3 d 58 5,

59 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) ( i n te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. “ Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we m us t

rev ie w th e co m

pl ai nt m os t fav or ab ly to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty an d m ay di sm is s on ly

if i t i s cl ear t ha t n o re li ef ca n b e g ran te d u nd er any set of f act s t ha t co ul d b e p ro ve d

co ns is te nt wit h th e al le ga ti on s.” Alex an de r v. Peff er , 99 3 F .2d 13 48 , 13 49 (8t h C ir.

19 93 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

The ap pe ll ees al so su ed ot he r pa rti es who ha ve si nc e be en di sm is se d an d who 2

are n ot su bjec t t o t hi s ap pe al

.

-5

-“ The ob vi ou s fu nc t i o n o f th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y ru le is to ex cu se an of fic er
who mak e s a reas on ab le m is ta ke in th e ex erci se of hi s of fic ia l du ti es .” Edw ar ds v.

Bae r , 86 3 F.2 d 60 6, 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ). “ An in di vi d u a l de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y if hi s co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d con st it ut io na l
rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Est at e of W al ker v. W al la ce , 88 1 F.3 d 10 56

, 10 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Thi s co ur t “ rev ie w[s] de no vo th e de ni al of a

m ot io n to di sm is s on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d m

us t co ns id er whe th er th e pl ai nt iff ha s st at ed a pl au si bl e cl ai m fo r vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

an d whe th er th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is h ed at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d in frac ti on .”

Dad d

, 8 2 7 F

. 3 d at 75 4– 55 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Abs en t ei th er a cl earl y

es ta bl is he d rig ht or a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, qu al ifi ed im m un it y ap pl ie s. Se e Est at e of W al ker

, 88 1 F.3 d at 10 60

. W e ap pl y th e s a m e st an da rd to cl ai m s un de r th e

Ar k a n s a s C on st it ut io n. Se e Hud so n v. No rr is , 2 27 F.3 d 10 47 , 1 05 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )
(ci ti ng Rob in so n v . Lan gd on , 97 0 S .W .2d 29 2, 2 96 (Ark . 19 98 )).

1. Co ns ti tu ti on al

Vio la ti on

“ In W ha le n v. Roe

, 42 9 U.S. 58 9, 97 S. Ct

. 86 9, 51 L. Ed

. 2 d 6 4 (1 97 7)
( W ha le n ), th e Su pr em e Co ur t de te rm in ed th at on e co m po ne nt of th e pr ot ect io n of th e rig ht to pr iv acy em

bo di ed in th e [F]ou rte en th [A]m en dm en t is an in di vi du al ’s in te res t

in av oi di ng di sc lo su res of pe rs on al m at te rs .” Peff er , 99 3 F

. 2 d at 13 49

. W e ha ve
ad op te d th at un de rs ta nd in g of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t, reco gn iz in g a “ rig ht to

co nf id en ti al it y ” pr ot ect in g “ ag ai ns t pu bl ic di ss em in at io n of in fo rm at io n” co nc ern in g

“ hi gh ly pe rs on al m at te rs rep res en ti ng th e m os t in ti m at e as pe ct s of hu man affa irs .”
Eag le v. Mor

ga n , 88 F.3d 62 0, 6 25 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

To v io la te a pe rs on ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht of pr iv acy th e in fo rm a t i o n di sc lo se d m

us t be ei th er a sh oc ki ng d e g r a da ti on or an eg reg io us hu m il ia ti on of he r to fu rth e r so m e sp eci fic st at e in te res t, or a fla gr an t b r each of a pl ed ge of co nf id en ti al it y whi ch was in st ru m en ta l i n ob ta in in g th e pe rs on al in fo rm at io n. To de te rm in e whe th er a pa rti cu la r di sc lo su re sa ti sf

ie s th is ex act in g st an da rd

, we m us t exam in e th e na tu re

-6

-of th e m at eri al op en ed to pu bl ic vi ew to as se ss whe th er the pe rs on ha d

a le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n th at th e in fo rm at io n wou ld rem ai n co nf id en ti al
whi le in t h e st at e’s po ss es si on

. W he n th e in fo rm at io n is in he ren tl y
pr iv at e, it is en ti tl ed to pro te ct io n. 3

Id . (cl ean ed up ).

Bec au se of th e “ li m it ed ” na tu re of th e rig ht

, we ha ve rep eat ed ly de cl in ed to

de ny of fic ia ls qu al ifi ed im

m un it y f o r di sc lo su res in vo lv in g an y th in g sh or t of “ th e

m os t in ti m at e as pe ct s of hu m an affa irs .” W ad e v. Goo dw in

, 84 3 F.2 d 11 50

, 11 53 (8 th

Ci r. 19 88 ) (u p h o ld in g fin di ng of qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re st at e of

fic ia l id en ti fie d
pl ai nt iff as a “ su rv iv al is t” ); Peff er , 99 3 F.2 d at 13 51 (fi nd in g pl ai nt iff ha d no t al le ge d

a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n whe re ci ty of fic ia l rev eal ed pl ai nt iff ha d be en reject ed fro m
th e po li ce acad em

y ); Co ok se y v. Boy er , 28 9 F.3 d 51 3, 51 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (aff irming

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y fin di ng whe re m ay or rev eal ed po li ce ch ie f was be in g tre at ed fo r

st res s)

. W e ha ve al so de cl in ed to de ny an of fic ia l qu al ifi ed i mm

u n i t y whe re th e

in fo rm at io n di sc lo se d was no t “ in he ren tl y pr iv at e.” Eag le

, 88 F.3 d at 62 5 (rev ers in g
de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y whe re of

fic ers pu bl ic iz ed in fo rm at io n al read y in th e

pu b l i c d o mai n) ; se e al

so Ril ey v. St . L ou is Ct

y. of Mo. , 1 53 F.3 d 62 7, 63 1 (8 th Ci r.

O’ Kell ey an d Cat e cl ai m th e co ns ti tu ti on a l v i ol at io n pr on g of th is cas e is 3

co nt ro ll ed by Har t v. Ci ty of Li tt le Roc k

, 43 2 F.3 d 80 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) rat he r th an ou r in fo rm at io na l pri va cy pr eced en t; th ey ur ge us to ad op t sta nd ard s app li ed th erei n. In
Har t , p ol ic e of

fic ers su ed Lit tl e Ro ck for rel eas in g fi le s co nt ai ni ng th ei r ad dr es se s,

so ci al sec ur it y

nu m be rs , and ot he r se ns it iv e in fo rm at io n to a de fen se att or ne y , who
th en rel eas ed th os e fil es to hi s in carc erat ed cl ie nt ; th e of fic ers cl a i med t h e ci ty h ad

en da ng ered th em by rel eas in g th ei r pe rs on al in fo rm at io n to a cri m in al

. Id

. at 80 3. W e

an al y zed th e cas e un de r a “ st at e-cr eat ed da ng er th eo ry ,” be cau se “ th e st at e o wes a du ty to pr ot ect in di vi du al s if it cre a t e d th e da ng er to whi ch th e in di vi du al s are

su bjec te d.” I

d

. a t 8 0 5. The in st an t cas e do es no t in vo lv e a st at e-cr eat ed da ng er; th eref or e, Har t is no t th e ap pl ic ab le pr eced en t. Har t is fu rth er di st in gu is ha bl e in th at

m uc h of th e in fo rm at io n at is su e in H a r t

— su ch as ad dr es se s an d na m es of fam il y

m em be rs —was no t i nh eren tl y pri va te

.

-7

-19 98 ) (aff

irming qu al ifi ed im m

un it y fin di ng whe re of

fic ers rel eas ed ph ot og rap hs of

th e de ceas ed whe re t he de ceas ed ’s m ot he r ha d al lo wed hi s rem ai ns to be vi ewed

du rin g a vi si ta ti on ).

Th e of fic ia ls su gg es t th at be cau se we ha ve de cl in ed to fin d co ns ti tu ti o n a l

vi ol at io ns in ou r pr ev io us in fo rm at io na l pri va cy cas es , we m us t als o dec li ne to fin d

a vi ol at io n he re. W e di sa gr ee. W e ha ve rep eat ed ly reco gn iz ed th e ex is te nc e of a rig ht

to co nf id en ti al it y si nc e th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s pr on ou nc em en t in W ha le n

. Ju st as we
ha ve re co gni zed in fo rm at io na l pr iv acy’ s li m it s by de nyin g it s ap pl ica tio n in le ss- thaneg reg io us cas es , we ha ve al so de fin ed it s reac h by de sc rib in g th e types of cas es in

whi ch th e rig ht wo ul d pr os cri be of fic ia l be ha vi or

. Se e Goo dw i n , 8 4 3 F .2d at 11 53
(n ot in g th at th e Co ns ti tu ti on pr ot ect s “ pr iv acy” in t he co nt ex t o f “ th e m os t in ti m at e

as pe ct s of hu m an affa irs ”); Peff er , 99 3 F.2 d at 13 50 (fi nd in g rig ht to pr iv acy pr ot ect s

in fo rm at io n th at wou ld co ns ti t u t e “a sh oc ki ng de gr ad at io n or an eg reg io us
hu m il ia ti on

. . . to fu rth er so m e sp eci fic st at e in te res t, or a fla gr an t br eech of a pl ed ge
of co nf id en ti al it y wh i c h was in st ru m en ta l in ob ta in in g th e pe rs on al in fo rm at io n” );
Eag le

, 88 F.3 d at 62 5 (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ in he ren tl y pr iv at e” in fo rm at io n is pr ot ect ed ).

Tho ug h we ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t pu bl ic d is se m in at io n of

in fo rm at io n is li m it ed ,” th at qu al ifi er ap p li es to in fo rm at io n th at is no t “ hi gh ly

pe rs on al ,” do es no t “ rep res en t[] th e m os t i nt im at e as pe ct s o f hu m an affa irs ,” an d is

no t “ in he ren tl y pr iv at e.” Eag le

, 88 F.3 d at 62 5 (in te rn a l qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. The

li m it at io n d oe s n ot swal lo w th e ri gh t.

G o v e r nm en t of

fic ia ls are en ti tl ed to pr ot ect io n fro m li ab il it y fo r in no cu ou s
di sc lo su res , bu t we wil l u p h o l d ge nu in e co ns ti tu ti on al li m it s on go ve rn m en ta l

di sc lo su re in th e ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ce. Bei ng id en ti fie d as a m in or vi ct i m o f

se xu al ab us e is m ark ed ly m or e in tru si ve th an be in g id en ti fie d as a su rv iv al is t, fai le d

po li ce acad em

y a p p li can t, or ov er-s tre ss ed po li ce ch ie f. Rel eas in g al read y -p ub li c

in fo rm at io n—

pa rti cu la rly i nf

or m at io n m a d e a v a i la bl e by t he pl ai nt iff he rs el f, as in

-8

-Ril ey —i s al so va st ly di ffer en t th an di sc lo si ng in fo rm at io n th a t th e pl ai nt iff s
th em se lv es jealo us ly gua rd ed fro m th e p ub li c. 4

Gui de d by th e co ns id erat io ns de ta il ed in Peff er , Eag le

, an d Co ok

se y , we ho ld

th at th e ap pe ll ees ha ve al le ge d a pl au si bl e cl ai m fo r th e vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht

. Th e ap pe ll ees al le ge Ci ty an d Co un ty la w en fo rcem en t ob ta in ed in fo rm at io n
ab ou t Jo sh ’s ab us e fro m th e ap pe ll ees an d th ei r fam il y , pr om is in g th em

co nf id en ti al it y

. The y al le ge th e of fic ia ls th en rel eas ed th os e la w en fo rcem en t rep or ts

to th e pu bl ic

. The y al le ge th ey were m in or s at th e ti m e of th e m ol es ta ti on an d at the

ti m e th e rep or ts were crea t e d

. Th e y a ll eg e th e rep or ts co nt ai ne d gr ap hi c de ta il s of

th ei r in ces tu ou s se xu al ab us e. And

, th ey al le ge th e rep or ts were in su ffi ci en tl y
red act ed

, de fact o rev eal in g th ei r na m es to th e pu bl ic

. Fi na ll y , th ey al le ge th e of fic ia ls

rel eas ed th e rep or ts in an effo rt to pr om ot e th e ap pe aran ce of tra ns pa ren cy

. The refo re,
th e ap pe ll ees ha ve pl ead ed su ffi ci en t fact s to m eet Peff er ’s “ ex act in g st an da rd .” Se e Eag le , 88 F.3d at 6 25

.

The in fo rm at io n rel eas ed by th e of fic ia ls in vo lv ed “ hi gh ly pe rs on al m at t e rs

rep res en ti ng th e m os t in ti m at e as pe ct of hu m an affa ir,” Eag l e , 8 8 F

. 3 d at 62 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io n rem ov ed ), an d th e ap pe l l e e s ha d a le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy in th at in fo rm at io n. Not on ly di d po li ce pr om is e t h e ap pe ll ees th at th e

Hoyt su bm it te d se pa rat e br ie fin g an d ar gu es he co ul d no t ha ve vi ol at ed th e 4

ap pe ll ees ’ rig ht to co nf

id en ti al it y b e c a u s e he rel eas ed hi s rep or t aft er th e Ci ty,

m ean in g t he in fo rm at io n at is su e was al read y pu bl ic

. Howev er, at th is st ag e of th e li ti ga ti on , “ we m

us t rev ie w th e co m

pl ai nt m os t fav or ab ly to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty.”
Pe f f e r , 99 3 F.2 d at 13 49

. The ap pe ll ees al le ge th at th e Co un ty rep or t rev ea l e d
in fo rm at io n no t co nt ai n e d i n C i t y re po rt, an d we ta ke th os e al le ga ti on s as tru e. W e al so he si ta te to an no un ce a ru le th at wou ld al lo w m ul ti pl e of fic ia ls to vi ol at e a
pe rs on ’s rig ht s ne ar-s im

ul ta ne ou sl y bu t wou ld on ly pu ni sh th e “ fir st -m ov er.” W e

ne ed no t res ol ve th is “ fir st -in -ti m e” is su e he re, ho wev er, be cau se th e ap pe ll ees ha ve al le ge d s ep arat e v io la ti on s.

-9

-in fo rm at io n wou ld rem ai n pr iv at e, bu t Ark an sa s la w al so su pp or te d th is ex pe ct at io n

of pri va cy

. In s um , th e in fo rm at io n was in he ren tl y pr iv at e an d is th eref or e en ti tl ed 5

The Arka ns as Co de pro vi de s t ha t 5

[a] la w en fo rcem en t ag en cy sh al l no t di sc lo se to th e pu bl ic in fo rm at io n di rect ly or in di rect ly id en ti fy in g th e vi ct im of a se x of fen se ex cep t to th e

ex te nt th at di sc lo su re i s:

(1 ) Of th e si te of t he sex off en se ;

(2 ) Req ui red by law;

(3 ) Neces sa ry

for law en fo rcem en t p ur

po se s; or

(4 ) Perm it te d b y

th e co ur t fo r go od cau se

.

Ark . Cod e Ann . § 1 6- 90 -1 10 4( b)

.

S e c ti on 16 -9 0- 11 04 (b )(2 ) in cl ud es an ex cep ti on fo r di sc lo su res req ui red by
la w, bu t th e ex cep ti on is cl ari fie d by Ark an sa s’s Ch il d Mal tre at m ent A ct

, whi ch st at es th at

[a]ny da ta

, reco rd s, rep or ts

, or do cu m en ts th at are crea te d, co ll ect ed

, or

co m pi le d by or on be ha lf of th e Dep art m en t of Hum an Serv ic e s , th e Dep art m en t of Ark an sa s S t at e Po li ce, or ot he r en ti ty au th or iz ed un de r th is ch ap te r to pe rfo rm in ve st ig at io ns or pr ov id e se rv ic es to ch il dr en , in di vi du al s, or fam i li es sh al l no t be su bjec t to di sc lo su re un de r th e Free do m of I nf or m at io n Act of 1 96 7, § 25 -1 9- 10 1 e t s eq

.

Ark . Cod e Ann . § 1 2- 18 -1 04 (a).

The Ci ty an d Co un ty’ s rep or ts were “ do cu m en ts ” “cr e at ed

, co ll ect ed

, or

co m pi le d” by “ en ti t[i es ] au th or iz ed

. . . to pe rfo rm in ve st ig at io ns or pr ov id e se rv ic es
to ch il dr en , in di vi du al s, or fam il ie s” a s d e f in ed by th e Act. Se e id

. The Co un ty

pr os ecu to r’s fil i n g o f a FINS pe ti ti on in res po ns e to a Ci ty po li ce req ue st al so

-1 0-to co ns ti tu ti o n a l p ro te ct io n. The ap pe ll ees ha ve st at ed a pl au si bl e cl ai m fo r th e

vi ol at io n o f th ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co nf id en ti al it y

.

2. Cl ea rl y Est ab li sh ed

The “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d” an al y si s “ fo cu s[ es ]

. . . on whe th er th e of fic er ha d fai r

no ti ce th at he r co nd uc t was un la wfu l

. . . at th e ti m e of t h e c o n du ct .” Ki se la v. Hug he s , 13 8 S. Ct

. 11 48

, 11 52 (2 01 8) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng Bro ss ea u v. Hau ge n , 54 3

U.S. 19 4, 19 8 (2 00 4) (p er cu ria m )). “ The rig ht th e of fic ia l is al le ge d to ha ve vi ol at ed

su pp or ts th e st at us of th e rep or ts as do cu m en ts to whi ch th e Ch il d Mal tre at m en t Act

ex cep ti on ap pl ie s.

The in te rp la y be twee n th e two st at ut es is read il y di sc ern i b l e f r om th ei r pl ai n la ng ua ge . The ab se nc e o f Ark an sa s ca se s ac tu al ly app lying th e Ch il d M al tre at m en t
Act do es no t ren de r it s pl ai n la ng ua ge am bi gu ou s. Non e of th e of

fic ia ls ha ve de ni ed
th at th e rep or ts were do cu m en ts ; th at th es e d oc um en ts were cr eat ed ; t ha t t he y were

c o l le ct ed or co m

pi le d by th ei r res pe ct iv e la w en fo rcem en t ag en ci es ; or th at t h e i r
ag en ci es were a u t h o r i z ed to in ve st ig at e th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Jo sh

. As FOIA
of fic ers , th e of

fic ia ls sh ou ld reas on ab ly ha ve be en aware of th e la w’ s req ui rem en ts

.

Neit he r is th e of

fic ia ls ’ at te m

pt to crea te am

bi gu it y by refe ren ci ng a ch an ge to th e Ju ve ni le Co de av ai li ng

. The Ju ve ni le Co de is an en ti rel y di ffer en t se ct io n of th e Ark an sa s C od e th an th at co nt ai ni ng § 1 6- 90 -1 10 4 an d th e Ch il d Mal tre at m en t Act

. Se e Act of Apr

. 4, 20 17

, No. 89 1, 20 17 Ark

. Acts 89 1 (am en di ng § 9- 27 -3 09 (j). The
le gi sl at u r e a men de d th e Ju ve ni le Co de to ex em pt fro m FOIA reco rd s of an in ve st ig at io n co nd uc te d whe n th e of fe nd er was an ad ul t bu t r e l a t i n g to juv en il e

co nd uc t. Thi s ch an ge do es ta ng en ti al ly rel at e to th e si tu at io n at i s s u e , i n th at Jo sh Dug ga r was in ve st ig at ed as an ad ul t fo r juv en il e co nd uc t. Howev er, Jo sh is no t a pl ai nt iff in th is su it : hi s si st ers are. The is su e he re is no t whe th er th e ap pe ll an ts act ed
im pr op erl y vi s a vi s J o s h ; t h e i ss ue is whe th er th ey act ed im pr op erl y vi s a vi s hi s si st ers

. Perh ap s th e Ark an sa s le gi sl at ur e di d am en d th e co de to pr ot ect juv en il e
pe rp et rat or s li ke J o s h

. Bu t th at am en dm en t di d no th in g to ch an ge th e la ng ua ge or

r a t i o na le of § 16 -9 0- 11 04 or of th e Ch il d Mal tre at m en t Act, whi ch are in te nd ed t o
pr ot ect vi ct im s ra th er t ha n p erp et rat or s.

-1 1-m

us t ha ve be en cl earl y es ta bl is he d in a pa rti cu la riz ed se ns e: The co nt ou rs of th e rig ht

m us t be su ffi ci en tl y cl ear th at a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld un de rs ta nd th at wha t he is

do in g vi ol at es th at rig ht .” Ca pp s v. Ols on , 78 0 F.3 d 8 7 9, 88 5– 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )
(cl ean ed up ).

The co nt o u r s o f a r ig ht m ay be su ffi ci en tl y cl ear wit ho ut “ a cas e di rect ly on

po in t.” Ki se la

, 13 8 S. Ct

. at 11 52 (q uo ti ng W hi te v. Pau ly

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8, 55 1 (2 01 7)
(p er cu ria m )). Tho ug h we are “ no t to de fin e cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w at a hi gh le ve l of

ge ne ral it y ,” id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

, “ [g ]enera l st at em en ts of th e la w are no t

in he ren tl y in cap ab le of gi vi ng fai r an d cl ear warn in g, an d in ot he r in st an ces a ge ne ral

co ns ti tu ti on al ru le al read y id en t ifi ed in th e de ci si on al la w m ay ap pl y wit h ob vi ou s
cl ari ty to t he sp eci fic co nd uc t i n qu es ti on ,” Ols on , 78 0 F.3d at 88 6 ( qu ot in g Uni te d

St at es v. La ni er , 52 0 U.S. 25 9, 27 1 (1 99 7) ) ; s e e a l s o W hi te
, 13 7 S. Ct

. at 55 2 (“ Of

co ur se , ge ne ral st at em en ts of th e la w are no t in he ren tl y in cap ab le of gi vi ng fai r an d

cl ear warn in g to off

ic ers , bu t i n t he li gh t o f pr e-ex is ti ng law t he un la wfu ln es s m us t

be ap pa ren t.” (cl ean ed up )). “ [I]n an ob vi ou s cas e, [g en e r a l ] st an da rd s can cl earl y

es ta bl is h th e an swe r, ev en wit ho ut a bo dy of rel ev an t ca se law.” Ols on , 78 0 F .3d at

88 6 (a lt erat io ns in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Bro ss ea u , 54 3 U.S. at 19 9)

.

The qu es ti on no w be fo re us , th en , is whe th er ou r la w was “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d

in a pa rti cu la riz ed se ns e,” th at th e of fic ia ls ’ al le ge d c on du ct was un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Ols on , 78 0 F.3 d at 88 5– 86 (cl ean ed up ). Nam el y , we m us t de ci de wh e t h e r th e la w

pr ov id ed fai r no ti ce to th e ap pe ll an ts th at rel eas in g de t a i l s of m in or s’ se xu al ab us e

to a ta bl oi d in a fo rm at pr ed ic ta bl y en ab li ng th e vi ct im s’ id en ti fic at io n was no t on ly

un ad vi sa bl e, bu t al so un la wfu l.

W e co nc lu de th at it di d. In ex act bo un da rie s are bo un da ri e s n o n et he le ss . Th e

pa rti cu la r f

act s al le ge d he re are no t ne ar th e pe rip he ry of th e rig ht to pr iv acy b ut at

it s cen te r. Cert ai nl y , a l l eg at io ns of in ces tu ou s se xu al ab us e im pl ic at e “ th e m os t

-1 2-in ti m at e as pe ct s of hu m an affa irs ” an d are “ in he ren tl y pr iv at e.” Eag le

, 88 F.3 d at 62 5

(in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. The co nt en t an d ci rcu m st an ces of th es e di sc lo su res do

no t jus t m eet th e st an da rd of “ sh oc ki ng ly de gr ad in g or eg reg io us ly hu m il ia ti ng ,” th ey

il lu st rat e th em

. Co ok

se y , 28 9 F.3 d at 51 6. And rel eas in g in su ff i c i e n tl y red act ed

rep or ts de ta il in g m in or s’ s e x u a l ab us e to a ta bl oi d, no twi th st an di ng pr om is es th at

th es e r e p o r t s w ou ld rem ai n pr iv at e, is “ a fla gr an t br each of a pl ed ge of

co nf id en ti al it y .” Id

. (cl ean ed up ). Des pi te no t ha vi ng ha d an in fo rm at io na l pr iv acy

cas e wit h th es e sa m e fact s, ou r cas e la w “ ap pl [ie s] wit h ob vi ou s cl ari ty to th e sp eci fic

co nd uc t in qu es ti on ,” Ols on , 78 0 F.3 d at 88 6 (q uo ti ng La ni er , 52 0 U.S. at 27 1)

, an d

th e ap pe ll an ts ’ arg um en ts to th e co nt rary are un av ai li ng

. Thi s is a cas e in whi ch

“ [g en eral ] s t a n d a r d s

. . . cl earl y es ta bl is h[ ed ] th e an swe r.” Id

. (fi rs t al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Bro ss ea u , 54 3 U.S. at 19 9)

. 6

“ [Q]ual ifi ed im m

un it y pr ot ect s of

fic ia ls who m ak e ba d gu es se s in gr ay area s, [an d] it gi ve s th em br eat hi ng ro om to mak e reas on ab le bu t m is ta ke n jud gm en ts .”

Est at e o f Walk er , 88 1 F.3d at 10 60 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Qual ifi ed im m un it y
do es no t, ho wev er, pr ot ect un reas on ab le m is ta ke s or pl ai n in co m pe te nc e. Se e Mal le

y

v. Bri gg s , 47 5 U.S. 33 5, 34 1 (1 98 6) (ex pl ai ni ng th at qu al ifi ed im m un it y pr ot ect s “ al l

bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m

pe te nt or th os e who kn owi ng ly vi ol at e th e la w”). W he re, as he re,

we are no t rev ie win g sp li t-s eco nd

, li fe-o r-d eat h de ci si on s ch arac te ris ti c of ex ces si ve
fo rce cas es , th e ran ge of reas on a b l e jud gm en ts na tu ral ly na rro ws by vi rtu e of th e
of fic ia ls ’ in crea se d op po rtu ni ty fo r reas on ed refl ect io n. Se e Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n

A r k a ns as la w fu rth er un de rcu ts th e ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m th at th ey la ck ed fai r 6

no ti ce of th ei r al le ge d co nd uc t’s il le ga li ty. St at ut es do no t crea te co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, Dav is v

. Sc he re r , 4 6 8 U

. S

. 1 8 3 (1 99 8)

, bu t th ey m ay as si st in sh owi ng th at th os e rig ht s are clearl y es ta bl is he d by he lp in g pro vi de fai r no ti ce of a pa rti cu la r co ur se of

co nd uc t’s un la wfu ln es s. Se e Ni ls on v. La yt on Ci ty
, 45 F.3 d 36 9, 37 2 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ [S]tat e st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns m ay in fo rm ou r jud g[ ]m en t reg ard in g th e sc op e of

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s

. . . .”); c.f. Sma ll v. McCr ys ta l

, 70 8 F.3 d 99 7, 10 04 –0 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Ark an sa s di sc lo su re la w is es pe ci al ly rel ev an t he re si nc e th e o f f ic ia ls ha ve
arg ue d t ha t t he law, i n fa ct , req ui red th em to di sc lo se th e rep or ts

.

-1 3-Val le

y , 57 4 F .3d 49 1, 4 97 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (n ot in g th e fact th at “ th ere [was ] no th in g

to in di cat e th at [th e of

fic er] was face d wit h th e ne ed to mak e a n y sp li t-s eco nd

de ci si on s” as co nt rib ut in g to th e co ur t’s de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y ); se e ge ne ra ll

y

Awn in gs v. Ful le rt on , 91 2 F.3 d 10 89

, 11 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (u nd ert ak in g qu al ifi ed

im m un it y an al y si s i n li gh t of th e “ fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g” th e o ffi ci al

in qu es ti on ).

W e ho ld th at th e rig ht of mi n o r v i c t i m s of se xu al ab us e no t to ha ve th ei r
id en ti ti es an d th e de ta il s of th ei r ab us e rev eal ed to th e pu bl ic was cl earl y es ta bl is he d.

B. St at e La w Cl ai ms

Gen eral ly, we wil l on ly de ci de st at e la w cl ai m s on in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al if th os e
cl ai m s ar e “ ine xtr ic ab ly int er tw ine d w ith int er loc uto ry ap pe al s co nc ern in g th e de fen se
of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y .” Ven ekl as e v. Ci ty of Far go , 78 F.3 d 12 64

, 12 69 (8 th Ci r.

19 96 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Howev er, we wil l al so rev ie w st at e la w cl ai m s fo r
th e li m it ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed a st at e

en ti ty or it s ag en t im

m un it y fro m su it

, “ be cau se im m un it y is effe ct iv el y lo st if a cas e
is erro ne ou sl y pe rm it te d to go to tri al .” Arg on au t Gre at Cen t. In s. Co

. v. Aud ra in Ct y.

Jo in t Co mmc’n s , 78 1 F.3 d 92 5, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Van W yh e v. Reis ch

, 58 1

F.3 d 63 9, 64 7– 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )); se e al so id

. (“ The ke y to ou r juri sd ic ti on ov er an

in te rlo cu t o r y a p p e al ad dr es si ng so ve rei gn im m un it y is whe th er th e im m un it y is an

im m un it y fro m su it ra t h e r t h an a m ere de fen se to li ab il it y .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d) ).

Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 21 -9 -3 01 im m un iz es al l po li ti cal su bd iv is io ns of th e st at e

“ fro m li ab il it y an d fro m su it fo r da m ag es ex cep t to th e e x t e n t t h at th ey m ay be

co ve red by l ia b i l it y in su ran ce” an d st at es th at “ [n ]o t or t act io n sh al l li e ag ai ns t an y

su ch po l i t i c a l su bd iv is io n be cau se of th e act s of it s ag en ts an d em pl oyees.” The

Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld an d rep eat ed ly reaf fir m ed th at § 21 -9 -3 01 pr ov id es

pu bl ic of fic ia ls wit h im m

un it y ag ai ns t ne gl ig en t act s bu t no t ag ai ns t in te nt io na l to rts

.

-1 4-Se e Su ll iv an v. Co ne y , 42 7 S.W .3d 68 2, 68 5 (2 01 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at

be cau se th e ap pe ll ees ha d a ll eg ed in te nt io na l t or ts , § 2 1- 9- 30 1 d id no t ap pl y

. Th o u g h th e of

fic ia ls arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ erro ne ou sl y in te rp ret ed

Ark an sa s st at e la w” be c a u s e “[t]he de ci si on in Bat tl e is wro ng ,” App el la nt s

O’ Kell ey ’s an d Cat e’s Br. at 31

, 33

, th ei r arg um en t is wit ho ut m eri t, as fed eral co ur ts

are bo un d by a sta te su pr em e co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of st at e la w. Se e Cu rt is Lu mbe r

Co ., Inc . v. Lou is ia na Pac. Co rp

. , 61 8 F .3d 76 2, 7 71 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Ark an sa s de fin es in te nt io na l to rts as th os e “ in vo lv [i n g ] c o ns eq ue nc es whi ch

th e act or be li ev es are su bs ta nt ia ll y cert ai n to fo ll ow hi s act io ns .” St ewa rt Ti tl e Gua r.

Co . v . Am. Abs tr ac t & Ti tl e Co

. , 2 15 S.W .3d 59 6, 60 6 (Ark . 2 00 5) (ci t i n g Mil le r v.

Ens co
, In c. , 69 2 S.W .2d 61 5, 61 7 (Ark

. 19 85 )). The ap pe ll ees al le ge th at th e of fic ia ls

co m m it te d th e in te nt io na l to rts of in va si on of pr iv acy—pu bl ic di sc lo su re of priv at e
fact ; in va si on of pr iv acy—in tru si on up on se cl us io n; an d ou tra ge

. Acc o r d i n g to

Ark an sa s l a w , th es e to rts in vo lv e th e rel eas e of ei th er (1 ) of fen si ve in fo rm at io n in

whi ch th e pl ai nt iff ha s a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy, se e Dun la p v. McCa rt hy

, 67 8 S.W .2d 36 1, 36 4 (1 98 4) (ci ti ng Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Tort s § 6 5 2 e t se q. (1 97 7 ) )

, o r ( 2) in fo rm at io n li ke ly to cau se th e pl ai nt iff em ot io na l di st res s. Se e

Cr oc ket t v. Ess ex , 19 S.W .3d 58 5, 58 9 (Ark

. 20 00 ). Rea d in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e ap pe ll ees , th e c o mp l ai nt al le ge s th at th e of fic ia ls rel eas ed th e rep or ts wit h

ei th er th e affi rm at iv e kn owl ed ge or th e su bs ta nt ia l cert ai nt y th at th e in fo rm at io n

co nt ai ne d th erei n was pr iv at e a nd th at it s rel eas e wou ld be of fen si ve or di st res si ng

to th e ap pe ll ees

. The refo re, be cau se th e ap pe ll ees ha ve s u f f i c i en tl y pl ead ed

in te nt io na l to rts

, th e of

fic ia ls are no t en ti tl ed to st at ut or y or qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e

ap pe ll ees ’ st at e la w cla im s at th is st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs

.

III. Co nc lu si on
The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 5-