Invasion of Privacy Read Free Page A

existence of, copying, or otherwise disseminating in any manner a film of approximately one hour in length known as Where Is Tamara Sweet?
    "I will summarize the basic facts briefly.
    "Tamara Sweet disappeared in 1984 at the age of eighteen from South Lake Tahoe. Because she had talked about leaving for some time, and had some problems at home, and because there was no evidence of foul play, the authorities chose not to consider her disappearance a criminal matter.
    "Over the years, Mr. and Mrs. Sweet have worked with missing persons organizations and hired private investigators in an attempt to locate their daughter. To no avail—"
    "Counsel," the judge interrupted, "you’ve covered all this in your Points and Authorities. Let’s move along to the film."
    "Certainly, Judge." Riesner picked up his brief, flipped a few pages, and said, "Twelve years have gone by, distressing, sorrowful years for her parents. Then, on January tenth last year, the defendant, Terry London, contacted the parents and asked them if they would be interested in having a film made about their daughter’s disappearance, a film that might help them find out what happened to her. Naturally, they agreed.
    "The defendant has filmed and produced several video documentaries and appeared well qualified to undertake the project. The Sweets opened their records and their hearts to Ms. London. They authorized Ms. London to review Tamara’s school records, talk to her old friends, do whatever was possible to help make the film.
    "And make the film she did. But rather than a wellintentioned film that might prove helpful in ascertaining the facts about a lost young woman, Terry London exploited access to private materials to make a film that depicts Jonathan Sweet as a self-absorbed and selfish father, Jessica Sweet as an alcoholic mother, and Tamara Sweet as a promiscuous, drug-abusing woman of questionable morality." Riesner paused for effect.
    "The other two plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Michael and Doreen Ordway, who were close friends of Tamara Sweet and who saw her on the night of her disappearance, have similarly been depicted as immoral, semi-alcoholic, selfish, and uncaring.
    "In creating each of these depictions, the defendant has very carefully chosen only those facts that support the depiction. In other words, technically she hasn’t libeled the plaintiffs, because the facts chosen were true. But she has emphasized private facts in a way that has caused them great emotional distress.
    "And there is one instance in which she has ventured into an area of wild speculation. She has attempted to link Tamara Sweet’s disappearance to several other disappearances of young women in this area over the last twelve years. Her ’theory’ that Tamara Sweet was murdered along with these other women is completely without foundation, and you can imagine how it makes the parents feel, Judge.
    "They met with the defendant after she invited them to preview the film, and tried to explain their feelings about the distortions of truth they perceived, but she has repeatedly refused to discuss any kind of compromise. The defendant has already negotiated an agreement to have the film shown on a major television network. The declarations of the defendants, Your Honor, can only give the slightest indication of the mental anguish viewing the film and anticipating its national exhibition is causing the plaintiffs—"
    "You have five minutes, counsel."
    As Riesner sped up, his deep voice stepped up slightly in volume, giving his final words added power. "Distraught, the plaintiffs turned to me, Your Honor. Today we ask the court for a preliminary injunction that will last until such time as the court’s calendar permits a full hearing on the issue of a permanent injunction. Since that could be a year or two down the line, Your Honor, and the temporary restraining order expires today, we need this interim order to prevent the irreparable harm to these good people that would