## Facts

- A scholarly case study about recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse was published using the pseudonym “Jane Doe”; the subject was Nicole Taus.
- Elizabeth Loftus and other defendants investigated the study’s reliability and published critical articles discussing Taus’s background while continuing to use “Jane Doe.”
- Taus alleged defendants invaded her privacy and committed related torts by interviewing people connected to her past, using court records from earlier proceedings, and disclosing sensitive personal information.
- Taus also alleged Loftus misrepresented an affiliation with the original study’s author to obtain information from a social worker.
- Taus sued for, among other claims, public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, and misrepresentation.
- Defendants filed special motions to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16), arguing the suit targeted protected speech on matters of public interest.
- The trial court denied the motions in substantial part; the Court of Appeal ordered most claims stricken but allowed four discrete theories to proceed.
- Defendants sought review, contending all remaining theories should be stricken.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ investigation, publication, and related speech were acts in furtherance of free-speech rights in connection with a public issue under the anti-SLAPP statute.
2. If so, whether Taus showed a probability of prevailing, supported by admissible evidence, on each challenged theory.
3. Whether Loftus’s conference remarks about the “Jane Doe” case were nonactionable because the disclosures were newsworthy and/or otherwise privileged.
4. Whether Loftus’s deposition reference to Taus by initials in unrelated litigation could support liability.
5. Whether obtaining and using court records from prior proceedings could constitute actionable intrusion.
6. Whether alleged deception to a social worker to obtain personal information stated a prima facie claim for intrusion by misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The court held defendants met the anti-SLAPP statute’s first step: the challenged conduct concerned public issues, including scientific and professional debate about recovered memory claims and related research methods.
- The court concluded the Court of Appeal erred as to three of the four surviving theories and ordered those claims stricken.
- Public disclosure of private facts based on Loftus’s professional-conference discussion was stricken because the disclosures were newsworthy as a matter of law and sufficiently related to the public debate.
- Defamation based on the conference remarks was stricken because the statements were protected in context as evaluative commentary on matters of public concern and not actionable.
- Claims based on Loftus’s use of Taus’s initials in deposition testimony were stricken because the reference did not amount to a public disclosure or actionable intrusion.
- Intrusion claims based on obtaining and using court records were stricken because acquiring judicial records for critique did not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy on the showing made.
- One theory survived: Taus made a prima facie showing of intrusion based on allegations that Loftus obtained sensitive information from a social worker through misrepresentation of her association with the original study’s author.

## Legal Principles

- Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, courts apply a two-step analysis: (1) whether the claim arises from protected activity in connection with a public issue; and (2) whether the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing with admissible evidence.
- Academic and scientific publications, conference presentations, and related investigative commentary about disputed research may constitute protected activity on matters of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- A public-disclosure-of-private-facts claim fails where the challenged disclosure is newsworthy and substantially connected to the public-interest subject.
- In defamation claims involving public-interest debate, statements framed as evaluation, opinion, or commentary grounded in disclosed facts may be nonactionable and protected in context.
- Limited references to a person by initials in a nonpublic discovery setting do not ordinarily satisfy the “publicity” element of public disclosure torts.
- Accessing and using judicial records for discussion of public issues is generally not actionable as intrusion on the showing required at the anti-SLAPP stage.
- Even where publication is protected, the method of obtaining information may support liability; deception to extract private information can constitute actionable intrusion if supported by a prima facie showing.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that defendants’ investigation and criticism of a prominent recovered-memory case study involved protected speech on issues of public interest and ordered most privacy and defamation theories stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute, permitting only a narrowly framed intrusion claim based on alleged misrepresentation to a social worker to proceed.


Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2007)