Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery

Conilyn Judge (plaintiff) agreed to be interviewed by Fox News for a story about cosmetic surgery and how to choose a great cosmetic surgeon. Judge’s cosmetic surgeon, Dr. Renato Saltz (defendant), was being interviewed, and he invited Judge to participate. Judge participated in the interview and discussed her surgery willingly, describing the outcome and her happiness with the results. During the story that aired weeks later, Fox News showed before-and-after pictures of Judge’s naked body from her neck to her thighs, obscuring her breasts and pelvis with black bars. Even though Judge’s face was not shown, the photos were identified as Judge’s before-and-after pictures. A Fox News reporter had requested the pictures from Saltz’s office manager, which Judge contended were emailed to Fox News without her consent. Judge filed suit against Saltz and Saltz Plastic Surgery (collectively, Saltz) and Fox News (defendants). Judge settled with Fox News and proceeded against Saltz for five claims, including publication of private facts. Saltz sought summary judgment, which a district court granted. The district court ruled that because Judge participated in the interview to educate the public on cosmetic surgery and choosing a great surgeon and discussed her outcome, the public acquired a legitimate interest in her redacted, private pictures. On appeal, an appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on each claim. Saltz sought review by the Utah Supreme Court, which assessed whether a plaintiff needed to show that the public had no legitimate concern in a private matter publicized in order to proceed with an action for publication of private facts.