Chapter §8.4 Relative Standing and Privacy Rights of the Dead

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§8.4 RELATIVE STANDING AND PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THE DEAD

RCW 42.56.540 allows "a person who is named in the record or to whom the record specifically pertains" to seek an injunction against release of public records. When the subject of the requested record has died, this remedy is not available because some statutes prevent release of records about deceased persons. See, for example, RCW 70.02.010(31), which includes "deceased individuals" in the definition of patients who are protected by the Health Care Information Act, referenced as applying to patient information subject to the PRA by RCW 42.56.360(2).

The general rule for some time has been that the deceased have no right to privacy. See, e.g., United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1581, amended by 854 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that under FOIA, "privacy concerns still may militate against disclosure in a given case. But when the defendant is dead, as in the present case, this ground for nondisclosure is foreclosed. Privacy interests are personal to the defendant and do not survive his death."); Young v. That Was The Week That Was, 423 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1970) (recognizing general rule that privacy rights extinguish at death); Gruschus v. Curtis Publ'g Co., 342 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir. 1965) ("The general rule ... is that the action does not survive the death of the party ...."). It has also been the general rule that relatives had no claim based on disclosures about their deceased relative's activities during the relative's life. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D (1977); see also Starrels v. Comm'r, 304 F.2d 574, 576 (9th Cir. 1962) (rejecting argument that each member of a family has a right in the privacy of other family members); Cordell v. Detective Pubs., Inc., 419 F.2d 989, 991-92 & n.4 (6th Cir. 1969) (dismissing privacy cause of action of mother over story reporting sensational and unauthorized account of her daughter's death); Justice v. Belo Broad. Corp., 472 F. Supp. 145 (N.D. Tex. 1979) (dismissing privacy cause of action of parents over a broadcast that referred to their murdered son's private relationship with his employer); Meeropol v. Nizer, 381 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (finding that "Members of the family of a deceased person cannot sue for invasion of the right of privacy where the statement is made concerning the deceased relative."), aff'd, 560 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1013 (1978); Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221 (Me...