Opinion ID: 2829245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Comptroller’s Argument for Analysis under the Intrusion upon Seclusion Tort

Text: The Comptroller asks this Court to expand Industrial Foundation by holding that if the disclosure of information would lead to a violation of the privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion, such information should be considered to be confidential under section 552.101. The Comptroller acknowledges that no judicial decision has ever held that information is confidential because disclosure of such would violate the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and no Texas court has ever held that the intrusion upon seclusion tort can be violated by a disclosure of information. Cf. Valenzuela v. Aquino , 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993); Cornhill Ins. PLC v. Valsamis , Inc. , 106 F.3d 80, 85 (5th Cir. 1997) (applying Texas law); Clayton v. Wisener , 190 S.W.3d 685, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no writ); Wilhite v. H.E. Butt Co. , 812 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, no writ). The elements of the torts of public disclosure of private facts (as applied in Industrial Foundation ) and intrusion upon seclusion contain important differences. The public disclosure tort has two elements: “information [is] deemed confidential by law if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Indus. Found. , 540 S.W.2d at 685 . On the other hand, the intrusion tort’s elements are: “(1) an intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, upon another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs or concerns, which (2) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Valenzuela , 853 S.W.2d at 513 . The Comptroller attempts to expand section 552.101 to include as confidential by judicial decision information that would be protected by the intrusion upon seclusion tort. For this argument to succeed, the Court would have to redefine the intrusion tort to include the disclosure of birth date information that may lead to an intrusion (i.e. by an identity thief). This connection is difficult to make. For instance, if a burglar enters your house, reads through your private files and papers, and steals your credit cards and identification, is the publisher of the phone book from which the burglar obtained your address liable for the intrusion? The answer is, of course, no. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion can only be committed by “[o]ne who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns.” Id . The tort is not committed by one who unintentionally facilitates the possible intrusion. Moreover, no Texas court has ever found a violation of the intrusion tort absent a physical intrusion or surveillance upon the seclusion of another, and the Comptroller does not cite any judicial decision that has ever made such a determination. Cf. Clayton , 190 S.W.3d at 696–97; Wilhite , 812 S.W.2d at 6 ; Valsamis , 106 F.3d at 85. Industrial Foundation is very clear that the question is whether the disclosure itself, not the requestor’s use of the information, would violate an individual’s right to privacy. “[I]f a governmental unit’s action in making its records available to the general public would be an invasion of an individual’s freedom from the publicizing of his or her private affairs, then the information in those records should be deemed confidential by judicial decision under . . . the Act.” Indus. Found , 540 S.W.2d at 683 (emphasis added). Justice Reavley , in dissent, also agreed that the Legislature is “concerned with confidentiality entirely apart from the manner of use of the information.” Id . at 692 ( Reavley , J., dissenting). The analysis should focus on whether the government’s disclosure would violate the individual’s privacy. For PIA tenets to apply based on the use rather than nature of the information would require government entities to obtain the reasons why the information is requested. This would contradict the clear prohibition in the PIA against government inquiries into the purpose for the requested information. Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.222; A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp , 904 S.W.2d 668, 676 (Tex. 1995) (holding that courts may neither consider purpose of the request nor inquire into how the requestor intends to use the information). The Comptroller’s argument for extending Industrial Foundation to include an alternative analysis of section 552.101 using the intrusion upon seclusion tort is not supported by the provisions of the PIA.