On May 30, 2014, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling filed a civil suit against the National Basketball Association and its commissioner, Adam Silver, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The Civil Complaint sets forth five causes of action against the defendants. They include: antitrust violations; conversion; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and violations for denial of Sterling’s constitutional rights. The Complaint seeks compensatory in excess of $1 billion along with injunctive relief “eliminating [Sterling’s] lifetime ban, eliminating the $2.5 million fine, the reinstatement of longtime Chief Executive Officer of the Clippers, Andy Roeser, the removal of the interim Chief Executive Officer installed by the NBA, Richard Parsons, and the termination of the NBA’s proceedings to strip Donald Sterling and the Sterling Family Trust of their ownership in the Los Angeles Clippers.”
Sterling’s Constitutional Claims:
In his complaint, Sterling alleges that his telephone conversation with his girlfriend, Ms. Stiviano was a private conversation which took place in California. He asserts that unbeknownst to him and in violation of California Penal Code §632(a), that private telephone conversation was recorded. Moreover, his complaint asserts that pursuant to California Penal Code §632(d) “[e]xcept as proof in any action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained a result of….recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceedings.” Sterling asserts that the NBA’s use of an illegal recording as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to privacy. In support of that contention, Sterling will assert that the NBA investigation constitutes an “other proceeding.” His complaint cites two federal court decisions in which secretly recorded telephone conversations were excluded from evidence in civil lawsuits per that statute.
Unlike most states, California’s right to privacy is applicable both to “state actors” (i.e. the government) and non-state actors. For example, in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633, 641-642 (Ca. 1994) the California Supreme Court rejected the NCAA’s argument that its drug testing policy did not violate the California Constitutional right to privacy because the NCAA was not a state actor. The California...
