<b>Decision of Note</b> MI Supreme Court Dismisses Claim over Backstage Taping

The Supreme Court of Michigan dismissed an eavesdropping claim by city officials who were taped backstage while demanding that a video they considered improper for young audience members not be played during a Detroit concert that featured rappers Dr. Dre, Eminem and Snoop Dogg. Bowens v. ARY Inc., 282711. The suit was filed after the backstage conversation was included as a bonus track in the DVD release of the artists' Up in Smoke tour. The defendants included Aftermath Entertainment and Dr. Dre. The Wayne Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, which also alleged false light and fraud, among other things. But the Michigan Court of Appeals let the government officials proceed with their eavesdropping claim under MCL '750.539a et seq.

The state supreme court found, however, that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that the backstage conversation was “private” for purposes of the eavesdropping statute. The Michigan high court noted: “(1) the general locale of the meeting was
the backstage of the Joe Louis Arena during the hectic hours preceding a high-profile concert, where over 400 people, including national and local media, had backstage passes; (2) the concert-promoter defendants were not receptive to the public-official plaintiffs' requests and, by all accounts, the parties' relationship was antagonistic; (3) the room in which plaintiffs chose to converse served as defendants' operational headquarters with security personnel connected to defendants controlling the open doors; (4) there were at least nine identified people in the room, plus unidentified others who were free to come and go from the room, and listen to the conversation, as they pleased; (5) plaintiffs were aware that there were multiple camera crews in the vicinity, including a crew from MTV and a crew specifically hired by defendants to record backstage matters of interest; (6) and video evidence shows one person visibly filming in the room where the conversation took place while plaintiffs were present, thereby establishing that at least one cameraman was openly and obviously filming during the course of what plaintiffs have characterized as a 'private conversation.' Given these facts, plaintiffs could not have reasonably expected that their conversation with defendants would 'be free from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.'” The state supreme court added: “To the contrary, the conversation strikes us as one that was uniquely defined by both 'casual' and 'hostile' 'intrusion,' and 'surveillance.'”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or visit his Web site at stansoocher.com.