Opinion ID: 2638169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Amended Complaint

Text: On February 13, 2003, a few months after the publication of the Skeptical Inquirer and Tavris articles, plaintiff filed the initial complaint in this proceeding against Loftus, Guyer, Tavris, the Skeptical Inquirer, the University of Washington, and Shapiro Investigations, a private investigation company that had performed some investigation services for Loftus. In the initial paragraph of the complaint, plaintiff identified herself as Lieutenant Junior Grade Nicole S. Taus, also known as `Jane Doe' in publications referred to herein. As far as the record reveals, the filing of the complaint was the first occasion on which Jane Doe's true identity was publicly disclosed. The complaint also disclosed other personal information about plaintiff, including the names of her parents, the year she was born, and the city where she was raised. On March 6, 2003, prior to any response by defendants, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, adding CSICOP (the publisher of Skeptical Inquirer) and the Center for Inquiry West (an affiliate of CSICOP) as defendants. The first amended complaint, which is the operative complaint for purposes of the present proceeding, sets forth four causes of action. The first cause of action alleged that all defendants were liable to plaintiff for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint asserted that defendants had misused their knowledge and skills as psychologists, researchers[,] and writers and exploited plaintiff when they knew or should have known that plaintiff had a background and personal history of abuse so as to make her extremely susceptible to emotional abuse, slander, libel and exploitation. The second cause of action, also directed at all defendants, sought recovery for invasion of privacy. The complaint maintained that plaintiff is not a public figure and has a constitutional and statutory right to privacy, particularly with respect to her medical history and juvenile court records. The complaint asserted that defendants obtained private information about plaintiff both legally and by false representations and published that information, including statements about plaintiff that are not truthful. In particular, the complaint alleged that defendants employed fraudulent means to obtain private information from plaintiffs relatives, including misrepresenting their identity and befriending plaintiffs biological mother. The third cause of action, directed at Loftus and the University of Washington, sought recovery for fraud. The fraud claim against Loftus was based on allegations that Loftus made misrepresentations to plaintiffs relatives and friends in order to obtain private information about her, and the claim against the University of Washington apparently rested on allegations that the university falsely had represented to plaintiff that the process under which she filed an ethics complaint against Loftus with the university would be confidential. Finally, the fourth cause of action, directed against Loftus and Tavris, sought recovery for defamation. The complaint alleged that Loftus and Tavris made oral and written statements about plaintiff designed to suggest that she was unhappy, vulnerable, and of questionable fitness for her duty as an officer in the military. The claim against Tavris related solely to statements in the Tavris article. The claim against Loftus was based both on statements in the Skeptical Inquirer article and on public and disparaging statements about plaintiff' allegedly made by Loftus after the publication of the Skeptical Inquirer, including Loftus's alleged remark at a professional conference that Jane Doe engaged in destructive behavior that I cannot reveal on advice of my attorney. Jane is in the Navy representing our country.