487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973)
Ronald Galella, a free-lance photographer specializing in the making and sale of photographs of well-known persons, brought suit against three Secret Service agents and Jacqueline Onassis.1 Defendant Onassis is the widow of the late President John F. Kennedy, mother of the two Kennedy children, John and Caroline, and is the wife of Aristotle Onassis.2
Galella fancies himself as a "paparazzo" and makes himself as visible to the public and obnoxious to their photographic subjects as possible to aid in the advertisement and wide sale of their works.3 Some examples of Galella's conduct brought out at trial are illustrative.4
Galella took pictures of John Kennedy riding his bicycle in Central Park across the way from his home.5 He jumped out into the boy's path, causing the agents concern for John's safety.6 The agents' reaction and interrogation of Galella led to Galella's arrest and his action against the agents.7 Galella on other occasions interrupted Caroline at tennis, and invaded the children's private schools.8 At one time he came uncomfortably close in a power boat to Mrs. Onassis swimming.9 He often jumped and postured around while taking pictures of her party notably at a theater opening but also on numerous other occasions.10 He followed a practice of bribing apartment house, restaurant and nightclub doormen as well as romancing a family servant to keep him advised of the movements of the family.11
After detention and arrest following complaint by the Secret Service agents protecting Mrs. Onassis' son and his acquittal in the state court, Galella filed suit in state court against the agents and Mrs. Onassis.12 Mrs. Onassis answered denying any role in the arrest or any part in the claimed interference with his attempts to photograph her and counterclaimed for damages and injunctive relief charging that Galella had invaded her privacy, assaulted and battered her, intentionally inflicted emotional distress and engaged in a campaign of harassment.13 The action was removed to the United States District Court. On a motion for summary judgment Galella's claim against the Secret Service agents was dismissed. At the same time the government intervened requesting injunctive relief from the activities of Galella which obstructed the Secret Service's ability to protect Mrs. Onassis' children.14
After a six-week trial the court dismissed Galella's claim and granted relief to both the defendant and the intervenor. Galella was enjoined from keeping the defendant and her children under surveillance or following any of them, approaching within 100 yards of the home of defendant or her children or within 100 yards of either child's school or within 75 yards of either child or 50 yards of defendant, using the name, portrait or picture of defendant or her children for advertising, and attempting to communicate with defendant or her children except through her attorney.15 Galella appealed from the judgments dismissing his complaints, the grant of injunctive relief to defendant Onassis on her counterclaim and to the intervenor on its intervening complaint, and a third judgment retaxing transcript costs to plaintiff.16
Whether the district court properly dismissed Galella's claims against the Secret Service agents?17
Federal agents charged with discretionary protective duties under 18 U.S.C. § 3056 are immune from liability for actions within the outer perimeter of their authority. The public interest in unfettered judgments outweighs private rights that may be affected.18
Yes. The agents were assigned to protect the Kennedy children under the statute.19 They acted within the scope of their authority when they detained Galella after he jumped into the path of John Kennedy's bicycle in Central Park, causing the child to swerve dangerously.20 They then sought prosecution for the apparent violation of state law that interfered with their duties.21
The district court correctly applied immunity doctrine because the protective assignment required instant exercise of judgment.22 The agents' conduct fell within the outer perimeter of their line of duty even though they were not absolutely immune in every arrest context.23
The district court properly dismissed Galella's claims against the Secret Service agents on grounds of official immunity.24
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Timbers concurred in the affirmance of the dismissal of Galella's claims against the Secret Service agents.25
Whether the First Amendment shields a photographer from liability for surveillance, harassment, and related tortious conduct while gathering photographs?26
The First Amendment does not immunize news gatherers from liability for crimes or torts committed during the course of their activities. The press has no special immunity from the application of general laws.27
No. Galella's repeated conduct went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering.28 This conduct included jumping in front of Mrs. Onassis and her children, using a motorcycle to block their path, bribing doormen and servants, posing as a friend to gain access to private events, and coming dangerously close in a power boat while Mrs. Onassis was swimming.29 The conduct constituted harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and invasion of privacy under New York law.30
The First Amendment does not shield Galella from liability for his tortious surveillance and harassment.31
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Timbers joined the majority in rejecting any First Amendment immunity for Galella's conduct.32 He emphasized that the photographer's predatory actions toward the children in particular warranted strong injunctive protection.33 Timbers stressed that the district court's findings of deliberate violations of prior restraining orders supported the need for robust relief.34
His position underscored that crimes and torts committed in news gathering receive no constitutional shield regardless of the photographer's asserted press status.35 Timbers noted that the record demonstrated Galella's inexcusable conduct toward the minor children.36 This resolved any doubt about the unreasonableness of his surveillance when weighed against the de minimis public importance of the daily activities of the defendant.37
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Galella's untimely request for a jury trial and in excluding him from a deposition under a protective order?38
No. Galella's jury demand came nine months after answer and was properly denied as untimely with no showing of cause beyond inadvertence related to removal proceedings.41 The protective order excluding Galella from Mrs. Onassis's deposition was justified because he had already violated the temporary restraining order.42 This demonstrated an irrepressible intent to harass and disregard for judicial process.43 The court acted within its discretion under the revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent anticipated misconduct.44
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely jury request or in entering the protective order excluding Galella from the deposition.45
Whether the district court properly retained pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims against the federal agents?46
A federal court may retain pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claim when considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties support retention.47 This is particularly true where substantial federal resources have already been expended and remand would result in duplicative proceedings.48
Yes. After dismissal of the claims against the agents, the district court properly retained jurisdiction because the motion to remand came six months later on the eve of trial.49 The government had intervened and multiple hearings and motions had already occurred in federal court.50 A special master had been appointed for discovery.51 Remand would have required the state court to duplicate extensive prior work, with no claim of unfairness raised by Galella.52
The district court properly retained pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims.53
Whether the injunctive relief granted after trial was supported by the evidence and appropriately tailored in scope?54
Injunctive relief is appropriate where the defendant has stated an intention to continue the tortious conduct and past violations of restraining orders demonstrate that voluntary compliance cannot be expected.55 The relief must be tailored to the specific harm shown without unnecessarily restricting legitimate activity.56
Yes. The evidence from the six-week trial, including testimony of twenty-five witnesses and thousands of pages of record, overwhelmingly supported findings that Galella had insinuated himself into the fabric of the Onassis family's life through constant surveillance and harassment.57 This justified injunctive relief to prevent further invasion of privacy and harassment.58 However, the specific distance restrictions imposed by the district court were broader than necessary to protect against the paparazzo-style attacks.59
The majority properly modified them to prohibit approaches within twenty-five feet of Mrs. Onassis, blocking movements, acts endangering safety, and conduct reasonably foreseen to harass, while still allowing legitimate photography from a reasonable distance.60
The injunctive relief was supported by the evidence but required modification to tailor its scope appropriately.61
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Timbers dissented from the modification of the injunctive relief.62 He argued that the majority ignored the district court's weighty findings that Galella had blatantly violated prior restraining orders and that only clear, simple distance restrictions would prevent repeated compliance disputes.63 Timbers emphasized that the 84% and 87% reductions in required distances were unwarranted.64
He noted that the abstract 'reasonably foreseen' language substituted by the majority violated Rule 65(d) specificity requirements.65 Timbers further warned that limiting protection for the children to Secret Service duties would strip them of injunctive safeguards after age sixteen.66
Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332?67
Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.68
Yes. The complaint alleged diversity of citizenship between Galella and Mrs. Onassis together with an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000.69 The district court properly found that these requirements were satisfied.70 This conferred subject matter jurisdiction independent of the federal questions later resolved on summary judgment.71
The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.72