Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for Janet Kalbhen and Vantius, Inc. on privacy-tort, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and injunctive-relief claims arising from an investigation conducted in connection with Kalbhen’s divorce proceedings. The court held that the absolute litigation privilege protected Kalbhen’s conduct and extended the privilege to Vantius as an investigator acting as an agent of divorce counsel. The court also upheld summary judgment on the DPPA claim based on the statutory disclosure exception.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the absolute litigation privilege protected Kalbhen's conduct in obtaining and forwarding a vehicle license-plate photograph from liability for intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.
- Whether the absolute litigation privilege extended to Vantius, a private investigator acting as an agent of the attorneys, for conducting the license-plate check and preparing and disclosing the background report.
- Whether defendants' use and disclosure of information from Lewis's motor vehicle records violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
- Whether Lewis was entitled to injunctive relief concerning the dissemination and deletion of information in the background report.
Holdings
- The absolute litigation privilege protected Kalbhen from liability for the alleged privacy torts because obtaining the license-plate photograph and forwarding it to her divorce attorneys were conduct pertinent to the pending divorce litigation.
- A private investigator performing investigative work on behalf of and as an agent of an attorney is entitled to the same absolute litigation privilege as the attorney, provided the investigator's conduct pertains to the litigation.
- The disclosure of Lewis's personal information did not violate the DPPA because the information was disclosed for use in connection with a civil proceeding and by a licensed private investigative agency for a permitted purpose.
- Lewis was not entitled to injunctive relief because she forfeited the issue by failing to argue on appeal that she established the required elements.
Key quotations
“We agree with Leavitt and with Steffes that when an investigator is performing his investigative work on behalf of and as an agent of an attorney, the investigator is entitled to the same absolute litigation privilege as that enjoyed by the attorney.” (¶ 32)
“We emphasize that the privilege accorded to investigators is the exact same one enjoyed by attorneys during the course of litigation, requiring that the investigator’s communications and conduct pertain to the litigation in order for the privilege to apply.” (¶ 32)
“As extensively discussed earlier in this opinion, the information obtained from plaintiff’s motor vehicle records, including her identity and social security number, were properly disclosed to Beermann by Vantius, a licensed private investigative agency, for use in the underlying divorce litigation.” (¶ 48)
Factual background
During Janet Kalbhen's divorce proceeding, she asked a friend to photograph the license plate of a vehicle believed to belong to her husband's girlfriend and forwarded the photograph to her divorce attorneys. The attorneys retained Vantius, a private investigative agency, to identify and investigate the vehicle's owner; Vantius prepared a report containing Lewis's identifying and financial-related information, including her Social Security number. The investigation was intended to determine whether Kalbhen's husband was dissipating marital assets by spending money on Lewis or whether Lewis was a source of income for him. Lewis was later subpoenaed and testified about her financial entanglement with Kalbhen's husband.
Procedural history
During Janet Kalbhen's divorce proceedings, her attorneys retained Vantius, Inc. to identify and investigate a woman suspected of having a financial relationship with Kalbhen's husband. Amy Lewis filed a second amended complaint against Kalbhen and Vantius alleging privacy torts, a DPPA violation, and a claim for injunctive relief. The circuit court granted defendants summary judgment on all counts, ruling that the absolute litigation privilege applied and, alternatively, that the DPPA disclosure was permissible. The appellate court affirmed.