Opinion ID: 1801890
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Degree and Setting of Intrusion.

Text: This set of factors logically encompasses the place, time, and scope of defendants' video surveillance efforts. In this case, they weigh heavily against a finding that the intrusion upon plaintiffs' privacy interests was highly offensive or sufficiently serious to warrant liability. In context, defendants took a measured approach in choosing the location to videotape the person who was misusing the computer system. Evidently, plaintiffs' office was not the preferred spot. Hitchcock initially tried to capture the culprit in the computer laboratory. Based on the consistently high level of human traffic he described there, the laboratory apparently was far more accessible and less secluded than plaintiffs' office. The surveillance equipment was moved to the latter location only after Hitchcock determined it was too difficult to pinpoint who was using computers inappropriately in the open, more public laboratory setting. Defendants' surveillance efforts also were largely confined to the area in which the unauthorized computer activity had occurred. Once the camera was placed in plaintiffs' office, it was aimed towards Lopez's desk and computer workstation. There is no evidence that Hitchcock intended or attempted to include Hernandez's desk in camera range. We can reasonably infer he avoided doing so, because no improper computer use had been detected there. Likewise, access to the storage room and knowledge of the surveillance equipment inside were limited. A total of two people other than Hitchcock and Foster (Susanne Crummey and Stacey Brake) knew that the television/recorder was set up to monitor plaintiffs' office. Only one of them (Crummey) had a key to the lock on the storage room door. The spot was relatively remote and secure. Timing considerations favor defendants as well. After being moved to plaintiffs' office and the storage room, the surveillance equipment was operational during a fairly limited window of time. Hitchcock decided to remove the equipment (and plaintiffs coincidentally discovered it) a mere 21 days later, during which time no one had accessed Lopez's computer for pornographic purposes. We can infer from the undisputed evidence that Hitchcock kept abreast of his own monitoring activities, and did not expose plaintiffs to the risk of covert visual monitoring or video recording any longer than was necessary to determine that his plan would not work, and that the culprit probably had been scared away. Defendants' actual surveillance activities also were quite limited in scope. On the one hand, the camera and motion detector in plaintiffs' office were always plugged into the electrical circuit and capable of operating the entire time they were in place. On the other hand, Hitchcock took the critical step of connecting the wireless receptors and activating the system only three times. At most, he was responsible for monitoring and recording inside of plaintiffs' office an average of only once a week for three weeks. Such measures were hardly excessive or egregious. (Cf. Wolfson v. Lewis (E.D.Pa. 1996) 924 F.Supp. 1413, 1420 [electronic surveillance that is persistent and pervasive may constitute a tortious intrusion on privacy even when conducted in a public or semipublic place].) Moreover, on each of these three occasions, Hitchcock connected the wireless devices and allowed the system to remotely monitor and record events inside plaintiffs' office only after their shifts ended, and after they normally left Hillsides's property. He never activated the system during regular business hours when plaintiffs were scheduled to work. The evidence shows they were not secretly viewed or taped while engaged in personal or clerical activities. On the latter point, we agree with defendants that their successful effort to avoid capturing plaintiffs on camera is inconsistent with an egregious breach of social norms. For example, in a case closely on point, one court has held that even where an employer placed a camera in an area reserved for the most personal functions at work, such that heightened privacy expectations applied, the lack of any viewing or recording defeated the employee's invasion-of-privacy claim. (E.g., Meche v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (La.Ct.App. 1997) 692 So.2d 544, 547 [camera concealed in ceiling of restroom to prevent theft].) This circumstance also distinguishes plaintiffs' case from those we have discussed above, in which covert visual monitoring and video recording in an employment setting supported a viable intrusion claim. (E.g., Doe, supra, 945 F.2d 1422, 1424, 1427 [models' changing area]; Trujillo, supra, 428 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1100, 1119-1122 [police locker room]; Liberti, supra, 912 F.Supp. 1494, 1499 [dancers' dressing room].)