Taus v. Loftus

Taus v. Loftus (2003-2007) was a court case at the Supreme Court of California launched by Nicole Taus in February 2003 against psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, Melvin J. Guyer and several others involved in the research investigating the background of an influential child sexual abuse and recovered memory case study known as the Jane Doe case (1997) involving Taus as a child and later as a young adult. The lawsuit regarded a 2002 article by Loftus and Guyer at the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, in which the result of the research was published. In the article Loftus and Guyer revealed several previously overlooked aspects of the Jane Doe case, questioning it as an evidence for the existence of repressed and recovered traumatic memories. Taus sued Loftus and the people involved in the investigation for defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud and infliction of emotional distress, and requested compensation. The Supreme Court of California dismissed most of her claims as part of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, leaving only one claim against Loftus, allegedly misrepresenting herself while interviewing Taus’s foster mother. The lawsuit was settled in August 2007 with an agreement between the parties that Taus would drop the remaining claim, Loftus' insurance company would pay a nuisance settlement of $7,500 to Taus, and both parties would pay their own legal cost. Taus was required to cover the cost of legal fees of the remaining defendants.

Background

Jane Doe case

The Jane Doe case published by psychiatrist David Corwin and Erna Olafson in the Child Maltreatment (journal) in 1997, was an influential case study with great importance to child sexual abuse, repressed and recovered memory. It was used for educational and research purposes as well as an example in civil and criminal law cases. The study was very well documented with video recordings and transcripts. It documented interviews with Taus as a child accusing her mother with sexual a physical abuse, and eleven years later as a young adult talking about her memories of the abuse, and recovering a repressed memory of the molestation. After the case was published, Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin J. Guyer started an investigation about the background of the case, being skeptical about its validity. Using legal databases and public records, they found the people involved and interviewed them, uncovering crucial information that was omitted from the original study. The conclusion of the research indicated that Taus was probably not abused by her mother, and her memories were result of suggestions and coercion by her father and step-mother, as they were trying to win a desperate custody battle against the biological mother.

University investigations

Even before the findings were published Taus complained about invasion of privacy at the University of Washington where Loftus worked as a professor. As a result the university started an investigation against Loftus about scientific misconduct and impounded all the files. The procedure lasted twenty-one months, and during this time Loftus was not allowed to discuss or write about the case or give any information about the investigation. Melvin Guyer was also subject of similar investigation at the University of Michigan. When the investigation was over, and the researchers were cleared from the charge of misconduct, the results were published in the Skeptical Inquirer in 2002 in a two part article.

Lawsuit

Nicole Taus filed the civil suit in 2003 against the authors Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin Guyer, Carol Tavris who also written an article about the case at the same place, the University of Washington, the Skeptical Inquirer, and Harvey Shapiro a private investigator who worked on the case obtaining legal documents and organizing interviews. The charges were defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud and infliction of emotional distress with twenty-one causes of action within these four categories. Taus requested $1.3 million for compensation.

The defendant’s lawyer argued that the suit was a strategic lawsuit against public participation, and interfered with constitutional rights as well as hindering research with important implication for public policy. Out of the twenty-one counts, twenty was dismissed by the Supreme Court of California, leaving one claim regarding Loftus misrepresenting herself as Corwin’s colleague and supervisor while interviewing Taus’s foster mother. According to this claim the foster mother realized during the interview that Loftus was not whom she said she was, and after that the interview turned hostile and ended. Besides, she wouldn’t have disclosed details about Taus if she knew who Loftus was. Loftus categorically denied this accusation and noted, that the foster mother actually posed for photographs with her after the interview. A likely explanation for this is that the foster mother may have regretted giving information to Loftus after realizing that Taus would not have approved.

If Taus lost the last claim, she would have faced a bill of the five years of litigation, which came to $450,578.50, but she made an offer to Loftus to drop the case against her. The lawsuit was settled in August 2007 with an agreement that Taus would withdraw the remaining claim, and Loftus's insurance company would pay a nuisance settlement of $7,500 to Taus. Since Taus has lost the majority of her claims, she was still required to cover the cost of the legal fees ($241,872) of the defendants, except Loftus’s, who has forgone her portion in the settlement.

Privacy

Taus’s claim of invasion of privacy did not stand up to scrutiny because of the following reasons: Nicole Taus gave her written consent to David Corwin about publicly showing of her image and voice appearing on the videos, as well as the full content of the interviews for the purpose of scientific research and education, and by giving this permission, she waived her right about privacy. The case was initially publicized by Corwin, who used the videos of the interviews in traveling seminars for years before Loftus and Guyer conducted their research. However Taus only complained and sued Loftus et. al. after they revealed flaws in the research and still did not attempt to restrict the use of the material by Corwin. This suggests that Taus’s complain regarded the outcome of the research and not her privacy per se. Although Loftus and Guyer conducted extensive research about the case, involving private investigators, going through legal databases and public records, as well as talking to friends and relatives, the name and identity of Jane Doe has only been publicly revealed by Taus herself, when filing the lawsuit against Loftus under her own name.