Opinion ID: 215941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Watson's Invasion of Privacy Claim

Text: Mr. Watson also brings a second claim under Utah lawinvasion of privacybased on a theory of public disclosure of private embarrassing information. Mr. Watson asserts that C.R. England invaded his privacy when it disclosed his HIV-positive status to a potential trainee and other C.R. England employees. To prevail on his claim for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private information, Mr. Watson must establish three elements: (1) the disclosure of the private facts must be a public disclosure and not a private one; (2) the facts disclosed to the public must be private facts, and not public ones; (3) the matter made public must be one that would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. Shattuck-Owen v. Snowbird Corp., 16 P.3d 555, 558 (Utah 2000). Under the first element, public disclosure has been interpreted to mean[] that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a (1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, communicating a private fact `to a small group of persons' ... does not constitute public disclosure. Id. at 558-59 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a). As a matter of law, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of C.R. England because the disclosure to one potential trainee and a handful of C.R. England employees does not constitute public disclosure. See id. (concluding that disclosure to twelve or thirteen people did not constitute public disclosure). Accordingly, the district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of C.R. England on this claim.