In a published decision, a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division rejected “the notion that plaintiffs – in alleging an invasion of privacy in an office building’s bathroom – could only claim the presence of a hidden recording device by demonstrating their images were actually captured.” Jaime Friedman et al. v. Teodoro Martinez et al., case number A-4896-15T1.  In so doing, the panel rejected a lower court ruling and allowed plaintiffs to survive summary judgment on the basis of more circumstantial evidence.

The plaintiffs in Friedman alleged that a janitor placed hidden recording devices in a women’s restroom and recorded private activities for six months to a year. The police recovered footage of about eight hours of such illicit surveillance. The plaintiffs, sixty women, sued the janitor and his employer, as well as the owner of the building and the company managing the building. Each plaintiff alleged that she had used that women’s restroom while the hidden camera had been activated.

In discovery, the trial court required each plaintiff to identify one or more images of herself on the recovered recording. Thirty-five of the plaintiffs were unable to do so. As to those plaintiffs, the trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment.Continue Reading New Jersey Appellate Division allows some video surveillance claims to proceed, even though plaintiffs cannot identify themselves in the recovered recording