Pearson v Dodd Case Brief

Pearson v. Dodd United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1969 410 F.2d 701, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 947, 89 S.Ct. 2021, 23 L.Ed.2d 465 (1969) FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: Dodd, Appellee Defendant: Pearson, Appellant Procedural History: o The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating that the defendant’s (Pearson and Anderson) receiving and using of the stolen photocopied documents from the plaintiff’s files without permission made them liable for conversion o The court granted partial summary judgement on the issue of liability on conversion and the court denied partial summary judgment on the theory of invasion of privacy Relevant Facts: o Two staff members of Senator Thomas Dodd on several occasions from June-July 1965 went into the plaintiff’s office without permission and removed various documents from his files and made photocopies of them o They gave the photo copies to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, columnists o The columnists, knew the manner in which the documents were retrieved and published articles containing the information on these documents ISSUE: Whether the information obtained from the stolen photocopied documents is protected under the law of conversion? PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff: Defendant: HOLDING: No, District Court order reversed DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o When information is gathered and arranged at some cost and sold as a commodity on the market, it is protected as property o The information in question does not reveal any type of property because it is not any type of invention, secret plan to conduct business, it is just office records and letters from petitioners o The appellee was not deprived of the use of these documents because they were never not in the possession of the appellee and no conversion was committed against the physical documents RULE OF LAW: o Pg. 82 o Conversion deals with the taking control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that h the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel