A. A. Dietemann v. Time, Inc., a New York Corporation

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action for invasion of privacy. Jurisdiction was grounded in diversity. The parties agreed that California law governed. After a court trial plaintiff was awarded $1000 general damages. On appeal we are asked to consider significant questions involving the relationship between personal privacy and the freedom of the press.

The district court’s decision is reported in Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 284 F. Supp. 925 (1968). The facts, as narrated by the district court, are these:

The district court concluded: “The publication in Life Magazine on November 1, 1963 of plaintiff’s picture taken without his consent in his home on September 20, 1963 was an invasion of his privacy under California law for which he is entitled to damages. The acts of defendant also constituted an invasion of plaintiff’s right of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States which would entitle him to relief under Section 1983, Title 42, United States Code.” The court awarded $1,000 general damages “for injury to [Diete-mann’s] feelings and peace of mind. Time appeals from that decision.

The appeal presents three ultimate issues: (1) Under…

(concurring and dissenting).

I concur in all of the majority opinion except that portion refusing to meet the issue of the liability of defendants’ agents, acting as agents of the police. The opinion states:

The complaint stated a cause of action under claim of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . No contention was made that a cause of action was stated under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . I agree we should not reach any issue under the Civil Rights Act, but think we should reach and decide the issue as to Time’s liability for the acts of its employees, as agents of the police, in view of Time’s reliance on Fourth Amendment cases.

The district court found that an ' agreement had been entered into between Life magazine, owned by Time, Inc., and the District Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, for Life’s agents to acquire information which would be used against Dietemann in a criminal prosecution and published by Life. Diete-mann v. Time, Inc., 284 F.Supp. 925, 927 . It thus appears that the agreement constituted Life and its employees agents of the police. Time in its appellate briefs, disclaimed any contention that its employees were acting for or on behalf of the…

449 F.2d 245 1 Media L. Rep. 2417 A. A. DIETEMANN, Appellee, v. TIME, INC., a New York corporation, Appellant. No. 23096. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 23, 1971. Bennett W. Priest (argued), Allyn O. Kreps, of O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Paul M. Posner (argued), A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, * District Judge. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action for invasion of privacy. Jurisdiction was grounded in diversity. The parties agreed that California law governed. After a court trial plaintiff was awarded $1000 general damages. On appeal we are asked to consider significant questions involving the relationship between personal privacy and the freedom of the press. 2 The district court's decision is reported in Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 284 F.Supp. 925 (1968). The facts, as narrated by the district court, are these: 3 "Plaintiff, a disabled veteran with little education, was engaged in the practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs-as practiced, simple quackery. 4 "Defendant, Time, Incorporated, a New…