Reference no: EM131702341

Question: Around July 2002, defendants'computer technician, Tom Foster, informed the defendants that he believed someone was accessing pornographic websites at night from some of defendants' computers, including the one in plaintiffs' office. Defendants and various department heads and administrative staff members decided to conduct surveillance in areas where the illicit computer access had taken place. At approximately 4:30 in the afternoon on Friday, October 25, 2002, the plaintiffs noticed a red light on a shelf in their office blinking when there was movement in front of it. They looked more closely and discovered a camera. They followed the cord attached to the camera and discovered that it was plugged in and that the plug was hot to the touch. Plaintiffs notified their supervisor, who called IT technician Hitchcock at his home to report the discovery.

Hitchcock, who had not been to the facility that day, called plaintiff Hernandez in her office to explain the surveillance and assure her that the camera had not been installed to observe plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were extremely upset by their discovery and did not return to work until Wednesday, October 30, 2005. When they returned, the plaintiffs asked to view the surveillance tape. Plaintiffs were shown a tape containing scenes of their empty office, Hitchcock adjusting the camera, and about five minutes of static. In his deposition, Hitchcock stated that he had been planning to remove the camera the very weekend plaintiffs found it, because there had been no pornographic websites accessed from the computer in plaintiffs' office in the three-week period during which he had been periodically "recording" their office. Do the plaintiffs have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress? See Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. [48 Cal Rptr. 3d 780 (Cal. App. 2006)].