Opinion ID: 684867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: California Privacy Laws

Text: 37 The unions also allege that LSC's conduct in maintaining confidential records violates California privacy laws, and that the District Court erred in not considering California law. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides: 38 All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are ... pursuing and obtaining ... privacy. 39 This provision is in addition to the California common law of privacy. Porten v. University of San Francisco, 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 829, 134 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1976). 40 LSC argues that it is not necessary to allege disclosure of confidential information to state a claim for damages under California privacy law, but, rather, a court must consider what relief is awardable, not just what relief is sought. LSC argues that the duty to defend is triggered as long as there is any allegation that could potentially form the basis for a covered claim. 41 Pursuant to an agreement, CRLA agreed to maintain and allow LSC access to such personnel information as job descriptions, resumes, and performance evaluations. LSC seeks to enforce a binding arbitration agreement and prevent the alleged threatened invasion of privacy. 42 LSC alleges that the invasion of privacy threat in the underlying action has become injurious, and CRLA's employees can bring claims for damages. However, except for one alleged incident, no CRLA personnel information was turned over to LSC. In that alleged incident, summarized resumes, and redacted resumes, were furnished to LSC. 43 The district court does not err in finding that coverage under California law did not exist in this case. There are no allegations and no evidence that plaintiffs have suffered damages under California law.