Hidden Camera Update   

Three court battles involving hidden camera investigations have been resolved. But little new light has been shed on the legal issues posed by the popular but controversial technique.

In California, a judge decided against issuing an injunction against ABC News that would have barred ABC from using hidden cameras. But he ordered the network to pay legal fees of more than half a million dollars to a telephone psychic's lawyer. In Minnesota, Hubbard Broadcasting Co. settled a suit filed against it by an appliance repair firm by paying an undisclosed amount. And in New Jersey, a suit against CBS News was dropped when the network sent a letter it calls a "clarification" to a plaintiff who prefers to call it an "apology."

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bruce Geernaert had threatened ABC News with an injunction barring it from using hidden cameras in private workplaces in the state (see "Gotcha!" March). The threat came in a case in which the jury ordered ABC to pay compensatory and punitive damages to a telephone psychic who was the subject of a story on "PrimeTime Live."

Geernaert warned in court that damages alone wouldn't "get the attention of ABC." But in mid-May he shifted gears, saying he wouldn't issue the threatened injunction after all because "the punitive damage award serves the same purpose." Geernaert also ordered ABC to pay Neville Johnson, the psychic's lawyer, more than half a million dollars in attorneys' fees and expenses, an order that ABC has appealed.

In Minneapolis, Hubbard Broadcasting settled a suit against its TV station, KSTP, by Expertech, an appliance repair company. KSTP-TV reporter Joel Grover had described allegedly fraudulent practices in the repair of a microwave oven in a report. The company subsequently went out of business and sued the station, saying KSTP had "falsely portrayed the business practices of Expertech as dishonest."

The two sides settled on July 31, the day the case was scheduled for trial. Under the terms of the settlement, neither side can comment.

The third case involved a lawsuit by New Jersey attorney Joel Rachmiel against CBS anchor Connie Chung, reporter Roberta Baskin and producer Joan Martelli for a story that aired on "Eye to Eye with Connie Chung." In reporting on a series of bus accident stings staged by the New Jersey Department of Insurance, Baskin and a camerawoman carrying a concealed videocamera went to Rachmiel's office and recorded the apparent attorney-client interview. The story suggested that Rachmiel used a "runner," someone paid to direct accident victims to a particular attorney, and then went on to suggest that he was also conspiring with a doctor in filing insurance claims.

Rachmiel sued for libel. In September, CBS News sent what it calls "a letter of clarification" to Rachmiel, in which the network said it "regrets any unintended impressions resulting from the broadcast that have caused distress to you and your family." CBS paid no money to Rachmiel, but Rachmiel says the suit wasn't about money and that the letter amounts to a retraction and an apology. At any rate, he dropped the suit.

Rachmiel requested permission to depose Baskin and Chung on videotape. While CBS lawyers didn't object, they did ask the judge in the case to bar distribution of the tape, saying they thought Rachmiel would use it "to harass, annoy and embarrass the individual defendants (particularly Connie Chung) and CBS." CBS attorneys argued that this would invade the privacy of Chung, Baskin and Martelli, prompting Rachmiel to angrily claim that CBS "should be the last ones in the world to seek that kind of protective order, because they go around with hidden cameras into people's offices and otherwise, secretly videotaping people and then televising it to millions of people without concern for those who are victims of that kind of journalism." As it turned out, there were no depositions.