Doris Peniche vs. California Highway Patrol, et al

On June 06, 2024, the California jury deliberated and returned the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff Doris Peniche. She had filed this lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol and its employees for intrusion of privacy, distribution of private sexually explicit material, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case Background

On May 18, 2020, Doris Peniche filed an intrusion of privacy lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol before the California Superior Court, LA County. Hon. Joseph Lipner presided over this case. [Case number: 20STCV18935]

Cause

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) had a long-standing practice of dismissing employees early from assignments while compensating them for a full shift. This practice involved paying CHP employees for the entire assignment even if they were sent home early. To gather evidence for administrative interrogations against officers who received overtime, the CHP illegally obtained 53 search warrants under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA).

Search warrant number 18LHT0201 targeted Plaintiff CHP patrol officer Doris Peniche’s cellphone and other digital information. The search uncovered confidential images and videos of Plaintiff engaged in sexual activity. Officers involved in the investigation unlawfully shared these private materials.

False rumors circulated that the Plaintiff had engaged in sexual activity with her brother-in-law. These rumors were entirely false. On May 23, 2019, the Plaintiff was terminated

Plaintiff’s phone contained private sexual images and videos. Prior to the warrants, Plaintiff had heard false rumors about her sexual activity with her brother-in-law. CHP Sergeants Ruiz and Lentz, part of the investigative team, wrongfully disseminated these images. The leak of this private information breached court orders and CHP privacy policies, intended to protect personal data.

Melissa Hammond, after viewing the confidential material, incorrectly confirmed the rumors about Plaintiff’s personal life. CHP’s actions violated privacy laws and internal policies, causing Plaintiff significant harm. It is alleged that Hammond and others knew or should have known that the dissemination was illegal and an invasion of privacy. The true content of Plaintiff’s phone involved images of her with only one person, not as falsely rumored.

Defendant Melissa Hammond, a CHP lieutenant with direct supervisory authority over Plaintiff, acted with malice and indifference toward her civil rights. Defendants Robert Ruiz and Matthew Lentz, also CHP employees, similarly acted with malice or indifference.

Injury

Due to the Defendants’ wrongful actions, Plaintiff suffered substantial losses. These wrongful acts caused Plaintiff ongoing emotional distress, humiliation, shame, despair, embarrassment, mental anguish, and pain.

The Defendants’ conduct was despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious. It was deliberate, egregious, and showed a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

Damages

Plaintiff sought compensatory damages, both general and special. Plaintiff also demanded punitive and exemplary damages for each individual defendant. These damages aimed to deter and set an example. The Plaintiff requested reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute, including Civil Code § 1708.85. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought the costs of the suit incurred. Finally, Plaintiff sought any further relief the Court deemed just or proper, including interest and compensation for lost benefits.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Doris Peniche
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Charles L. Murray III | Steve Cooley | Brentford J. Ferreira | Collin Seals
  • Defendant(s): California Highway Patrol | Mark Garrett | Melissa Hammond | Matt Lentz | Christopher Margaris | Daniel Minor | Robert Ruiz | Charles Sampson | Warren Stanley
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Rob Bonta | Jaclyn V. Younger | Nancy Gail James

Claims

Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s privacy by viewing and sharing highly sensitive sexual images and videos that a Court had ordered to be sealed. They were liable for the intrusion of privacy as they publicized this private information in a way that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. Specifically, Defendants Ruiz and Lentz allowed unauthorized individuals to view these sealed photographs and videos of Plaintiff. They were liable for the intrusion of privacy.

Plaintiff did not consent to the distribution of these images and videos. They collected Plaintiff’s personal information beyond what was necessary for lawful purposes and then improperly shared it.

The Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and intended to cause emotional distress. They falsely claimed that Plaintiff was involved in sexual relationships with her brother-in-law and other men. Defendants failed to verify the truth of these statements.

In reality, no such photographs or videos existed of Plaintiff with her brother-in-law or other men. Their actions caused significant harm, including damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, resulting in shame, mortification, and hurt feelings.

Defense

The Defendants denied the allegations of intrusion of privacy, negligence, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They asserted that invasion of privacy, if any, was justified because it significantly advanced the public interest.

Jury Verdict

On June 06, 2024, the California jury deliberated and returned the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury found in favor of all the Defendants on the claim of intrusion of privacy. The distribution of private sexual material claims against Defendants Matt Lentz and Robert Ruiz was not granted.

Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Defendant Melissa Hammond and the California Highway Patrol was granted. No negligence was found on Matt Lentz and Robert Ruiz’s part.

The jury found only Defendant Melissa Hammond liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defamation claim was not granted.

The jury after deliberation awarded the Plaintiff an award of $1,000,000. The breakdown of this amount is as follows:

  • Past damages: $750,000
  • Future damages: $250,000

On July 18, 2024, Judge Joseph Lipner entered a final amended judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request