Thursday, April 5, 2018
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Telling of Sex Life of Husband, Girlfriend Not ‘Protected’
Opinion Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied Where Deputy Public Defender Sued Over Disclosures of Her Affair With the Defendant’s Spouse
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The sex lives of deputy public defenders are not matters of “public interest,” the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday, affirming the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion sought by a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who was sued for invasion of privacy by her estranged husband’s inamorata.
On Oct. 19, 2015, the defendant, Lisa Tanner, allegedly shared with colleagues at the Van Nuys Courthouse information about the affair between her husband, Michael Tanner, and the plaintiff, Christina Behle, both Los Angeles deputy public defenders. She told them of text messages between her husband and Behle, including one alluding to them having sex in a minivan parked in the driveway of Behle’s house.
A topless photo of herself which Behle sent to Michael Tanner—found on a cellphone by the Tanners’ 9-year-old daughter and forwarded to the mother—was shown to the coworkers.
According to the complaint, Tanner instructed her daughter to look for “intimate and compromising” matter on her father’s cellphone. Custody of the couple’s two children alternated.
Causes of Action
In addition to stating three causes of action for invasion of privacy (under common law, the California Constitution, and statute), Behle is suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She was told by Michael Tanner of his wife’s threat to post the topless photo, along with the accompanying text message, in the public elevators at the Van Nuys Courthouse, and was told by others “that Ms. Tanner shared the personal and intimate photos of plaintiff to dozens of DA’s office employees at the Van Nuys office,” the complaint states.
She is also alleging negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Behle claims she was denied promotion to Grade V based on the controversy surrounding her, generated by Lisa Tanner.
Yesterday’s opinion, which was not certified for publication, affirms the decision of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson denying an anti-SLAPP motion. Authoring the opinion was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Henry J. Hall, sitting on assignment to Div. Eight.
Basis for Motion
An anti-SLAPP motion lies, he said, where the conduct complained of implicates “the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” Here, he declared, that criterion was not met.
Hall explained:
“It is clear that Mr. Tanner and plaintiff’s communications were private and would have remained so but for their interception, however that occurred, and dissemination by defendant. Moreover, in no way did these communications involve an issue of public interest and they would have been of no interest to other people other than through ‘mere curiosity.’ Plaintiff’s statements do not deal with a ‘specific’ public interest because, at best, they deal with how defendant is going to resolve a dispute with her estranged husband and his girlfriend. Moreover, there is no relationship between this purely private dispute and a larger public interest. Most significantly, all of the witnesses to the October 19 conversations agree that it exclusively involved the ‘private controversy’ of defendant’s domestic issues with her estranged husband and not some larger public interest. All of the witnesses agree that the goal was to keep the issue private and limited….[D]efendant cannot convert this private matter into a public one by choosing to communicate this material to her coworkers.”
Status as DDA
Hall said Lisa Tanner’s conduct was in no way privileged based on her status as a deputy district attorney.
“By her own admission, appellant was not conducting a criminal investigation and did not intend to instigate such an investigation,” he pointed out.
The acting justice declared that “the record of this case is completely bereft of any evidence that would establish that the defendant’s conduct was ‘protected speech” within the meaning” of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
The case is Behle v. Tanner, B279050.
Kirk Edward Schenck of Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware represented Lisa Tanner. Jana M. Moser and Aanand Ghods-Mehtani of Rushovich Mehtani acted for Behle.
Behle is the granddaughter of the late Wilbur Littlefield, who was Los Angeles County public defender from 1976-93.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company