Case Brief

1. HaroldSowardsII
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
11/9/15
Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc.
816 A.2d 1001 (NH 2003)
1. Facts
 July29,1999 Liam YouenscontactsDocusearchrequestingthe date of birthforAmy
Boyerand pays$20
 July30, 1999 Docusearchgivesseveral datesof birth,thenYouensprovidesherhome
address
 Asksfor SSN pays$45
 Aug.2, 1999 Docusearchobtainsthe SSN and givesittoYouens
 Aug.3,1999 Youensasksfor Boyer’semploymentinfoandpays$109
 Aug.20, 1999 no response,Youensplacesasecondemployment requestpaying$109
 Sept.1, 1999 Docusearchrefundsthe $109 because the 1st
effortsfail
 Sept.6, 1999 3rd
requestplacesusingbySSN pays$30
 Sept.7,1999 giventhe results
 Sept.8,1999 DocusearchinformsYouensof employmentaddressthatwasacquired
fromMichele Gambino
 Oct. 15, 1999 YouensgoestoBoyer’sworkplace fatallyshotsher,thenshotshimself
 HelenRemsburg(Boyer’smom) suesDocusearchInc.,Winganda PrayerInc., Daniel
Cohn,KennethZeiss,andMicheleGambinoinUSDistrictCourt of NH for wrongful
death,invasionof privacythroughintrusionuponseclusion,invasionof privacythrough
commercial appropriationof private info
 DefendantsfiledSUMMARYJUDMENT
 JudgmentsenttoNH Supreme Court
2. Issue
Doesa private citizenhave ageneral dutytoprotect othersfromthe criminal attacksof 3rd
parties?
Is a tort actionbaseduponan intrusionuponseclusionrelatedtoaperson’sSSN?
Doesa personhave a cause of action forintrusionuponseclusionwhereaninvestigatorobtains
the person’sworkaddressbyusinga pretextual phone call?
Is someone whoappropriatestohisownuse or benefitthe name orlikenessof anotheris
subjecttoliabilitytothe otherforinvasionof privacy?
How isConsumerProtectionACT,RSA Chp.358AA worded?
3. Holdings
Yes
Yes

2. No
No
4. Reasoning
There are exceptionstothe general rule where adutytoexercise reasonable care will
arise due to special relationships/circumstancesoravoluntaryassumedduty.Special
circumstancesexceptionsinclude thosewere there istemptation/opportunityforcriminal
misconductbroughtaboutby the defendant.
Identitytheftisbecominganincreasingriskwiththe disclosure of personal information.
The threats of whichledthe court to conclude thatthe riskof criminal misconductissufficiently
foreseeable sothataninvestigatorhasa dutyto exercise reasonablecare indisclosinga3rd
person’spersonal infotoacline.The investigatordoesn’tknow the clientorthe client’s
intentions/purposeinseekingthisinformation.
A SSN is usedtoidentifypeople.WhileaSSN mustbe disclosedin certaincircumstances
a personcan expectthatthe numberswill remainprivate.A work/home addressare exposures
everyone mustsuffer.Noexpectationof privacythere.
The NH tort of invasionof privacybyappropriationisaninterestof the individual inthe
exclusiveuse of the identityandhow itmay benefitothers.The benefitderivedfromthe sale in
no wayrelatestothe Social orcommercial standingof the personwhose infoissold. Thusa
personwhose personal infoissolddoesn’thave acause of actionfor appropriationagainstthe
investigatorwhosoldthe info.
Pretextphone callshave beendescribedasthe use of deceptionandtrickerytoobtaina
person’sprivate informationforresaletoothers.Personwhoisthe targetbelievesthe calleris
froma reliable entity.RSA 358-A:2 prohibitsthisconduct.Createsaclearmisunderstandingof
the investigator’saffiliation.Thereisnolanguage inthe act that will restrictthe definitionof
trade and commerce to that affectingthe partydeceivedbythe prohibitedconduct.The Act
explicitlyincludestrade directlyorindirectlyaffectedthe peopleof thisstate.The investigator
whoobtainsa person’sworkaddressthroughpretextual phone callingandthensellsthe info
may be liable todamagesunderRSA Chp.358-A.