A recent case before the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in California involved a neighbor dispute, loud parties, and surveillance cameras. The case, Mezger v. Bick, et al. (decided July 1, 2021), concerned claims that comedian Kathy Griffin’s use of surveillance cameras violated her neighbor’s right to privacy. The Court ultimately sided with Ms. Griffin and her boyfriend, Randy Ralph Bick, Jr.
The Mezgers, who were Ms. Griffin’s neighbors, claimed that their new neighbors began making noise complaints about them shortly after moving in. The Mezgers then sued Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick, claiming violations of their right to privacy under common law and the California Constitution, and violation of Penal Code section 632. After discovery, Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick moved for summary judgment, providing evidence that they had installed the security cameras for their safety due to death threats Ms. Griffin had received.
The Mezgers opposed the motion, claiming that the cameras were solely to spy on them and to document their behavior to substantiate noise complaints made by Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick. They also offered evidence that the recordings were made without their consent or knowledge. The trial court ultimately granted the summary judgment motion, and the Mezgers appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal began by recognizing the standards involved with summary judgment motions, which require the Mezgers to show with admissible evidence “the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” The Court found in favor of Ms. Griffin and Mr. Bick, citing their legitimate safety concerns and the fact that the recordings were made entirely on their property. The Court also rejected the Mezgers’ claims of pretext and analogies to Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ultimately found that Ms. Griffin’s use of the cameras did not violate the Mezgers’ right to privacy.