## Facts

- A political consulting firm operated a private, access-restricted office in Washington, D.C.
- An operative for a political organization obtained an unpaid internship at the firm using a false identity and concealed purpose.
- While working in the office, the operative allegedly secretly recorded workplace activities and meetings and accessed confidential communications.
- The operative allegedly transmitted recordings and information to the organization, which later published a multi-part online video series using the material.
- The firm alleged any permission to enter was procured by fraud and, in any event, the operative’s recording and information-gathering exceeded any authorized scope of access.
- The firm sued, asserting multiple claims including common-law trespass under District of Columbia law.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint states a plausible District of Columbia trespass claim where access to private premises was allegedly obtained through material misrepresentations about identity and purpose.
2. Whether trespass can be based on exceeding the scope of any consent by surreptitious recording and gathering confidential information, even absent allegations of physical damage to the premises.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the trespass claim.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged that consent to enter was vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The court also held that, even if initial entry was permitted, the complaint plausibly alleged the operative exceeded the scope of any consent through covert recording and misuse of access.
- The court rejected the argument that trespass requires allegations of physical damage or dispossession at the pleading stage where intentional intrusion and interference with possessory interests were plausibly alleged.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is a defense to trespass, but consent procured by material fraud or misrepresentation may be ineffective.
- Trespass liability may arise where an entrant initially has permission to enter but exceeds the scope of that permission while on the premises.
- Under District of Columbia law, a trespass claim may be supported by intentional interference with possessory interests in private premises even without allegations of physical harm to the property.
- A defendant’s investigative or newsgathering purpose does not, by itself, defeat otherwise plausible tort allegations based on deceptive physical intrusion.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the trespass claim to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged that entry into a secured private office was fraudulently induced and that the operative’s covert recording and acquisition of confidential information exceeded any granted permission, constituting an actionable interference with the plaintiff’s possessory interests.


Democracy Partners, LLC v. Project Veritas Action Fund, 285 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2018)