Plaintiffs sued defendants, a law firm and three individuals associated with the firm, claiming that their rights of privacy had been violated when defendants failed to redact their personal identifiers contrary to the directive of Rule 1:38-7. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants violated one plaintiff's right of privacy by including records of that plaintiff's arrest and criminal charges. The court holds that Rule 1:38-7 did not create a private cause of action for a violation of the Rule. Instead, the remedy for a violation of Rule 1:38-7 is set forth in the Rule, which states that a party or other interested individual can move, on an expedited basis, to replace documents containing unredacted personal identifiers with redacted documents. R. 1:38-7(g). The court also holds that plaintiffs failed to state viable causes of action for invasions of privacy or infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the court affirms the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint.
