{ "id": 4267511, "name": "MICHAEL CORDTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Cordts v. Chicago Tribune Co.", "decision_date": "2006-12-08", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201406\u20141158", "first_page": "601", "last_page": "613", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "369 Ill. App. 3d 601" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "775 N.E.2d 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "601" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 Ill. App. 3d 935", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1034118 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "946" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/332/0935-01" ] }, { "cite": "735 N.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453267 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "605 N.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508", "parenthetical": "\"In Illinois, courts are encouraged to freely and liberally allow the amendment of pleadings\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 Ill. 2d 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5602939 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467", "parenthetical": "\"In Illinois, courts are encouraged to freely and liberally allow the amendment of pleadings\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/152/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 2d 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2548678 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/87/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 N.E.2d 1242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1256" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. App. 3d 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3316052 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/66/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "701 N.E.2d 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 221450 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/299/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "765 N.E.2d 1002", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1010", "parenthetical": "\"In each case where disclosure is allowed under the Act, the legislature has been careful to restrict disclosure to that which is necessary to accomplish a particular purpose. Exceptions to the Act are narrowly crafted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 Ill. 2d 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 58943 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60", "parenthetical": "\"In each case where disclosure is allowed under the Act, the legislature has been careful to restrict disclosure to that which is necessary to accomplish a particular purpose. Exceptions to the Act are narrowly crafted\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/199/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "755 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 Ill. 2d 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 259028 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/197/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "959 F. Supp. 478", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 883572 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/959/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185" }, { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 Ill. App. 3d 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1172415 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185" }, { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/277/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 N.E.2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" }, { "page": "276" }, { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2958644 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135" }, { "page": "135" }, { "page": "135" }, { "page": "132" }, { "page": "135" }, { "page": "134-35" }, { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/34/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 N.W.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "455 Mich. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 501854 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/455/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 N.W.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "401 Mich. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1925326 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/401/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "723 N.E.2d 1192", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1197" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 Ill. App. 3d 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 415423 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/311/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 N.E.2d 900", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902" }, { "page": "903", "parenthetical": "\"courts have realized that in circumstances where a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and 'the public' to whom the information has been disclosed, the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. App. 3d 976", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2587764 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "978" }, { "page": "980" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/202/0976-01" ] }, { "cite": "680 N.E.2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ill. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 544917 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/176/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "799 N.E.2d 273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 Ill. 2d 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 975002 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367-68" }, { "page": "368" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/207/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "759 N.E.2d 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69" }, { "page": "69" }, { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 Ill. App. 3d 1139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 570734 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1144" }, { "page": "1144" }, { "page": "1144" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/325/1139-01" ] }, { "cite": "707 N.E.2d 220", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" }, { "page": "221" }, { "page": "221", "parenthetical": "adding a fourth element that \"the matter published was not of legitimate public concern\"" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "222" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 Ill. App. 3d 839", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1352939 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "841" }, { "page": "842-43" }, { "page": "841" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "843" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/302/0839-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1228, "char_count": 32959, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.3779623831350785 }, "sha256": "6814de46d0f79b0bfd9c051ec180951d561c3185d5a4c70019dc5b820be2fa04", "simhash": "1:5cf01d700ff0c45a", "word_count": 5290 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:07.948493+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MICHAEL CORDTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE JOSEPH GORDON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Michael Cordts, brought claims entitled \u201cinvasion of privacy\u201d and \u201cdefamation\u201d against his employer, Chicago Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune), and Medeval Corporation (Medeval), a company hired by Chicago Tribune to evaluate the disability claims of Chicago Tribune employees. Cordts alleged that an employee of Medeval wrongfully disclosed to his ex-wife that he was receiving treatment for depression after the Medeval employee learned of the fact while evaluating his disability claim. Defendants brought a joint motion to dismiss the defamation claims based on section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 2004)), and a motion to dismiss the \u201cinvasion of privacy\u201d claims based on section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619 (West 2004)). The circuit court granted both motions and Cordts now appeals only the section 2 \u2014 619 dismissal of his \u201cinvasion of privacy\u201d claims. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.\nBACKGROUND\nCordts filed his complaint and jury demand on August 19, 2005. Count II of the complaint is entitled \u201cChicago Tribune Company\u2014 Invasion of Privacy\u201d and count IV is entitled \u201cMedeval \u2014 Invasion of Privacy.\u201d The two counts, which are nearly identical, allege the following pertinent facts. In March of 2004, Cordts applied to his employer, Chicago Tribune, for short-term disability benefits and Chicago Tribune, in turn, requested that Medeval provide it with a recommendation regarding Cordts\u2019s request. In August of 2004, Cathy Channing, an employee of Medeval who learned of Cordts\u2019s request for disability benefits through her employment, disclosed to Cordts\u2019s ex-wife, Kathleen, that Cordts was receiving treatment for depression. Cordts discovered that his health information had been disclosed to his ex-wife on August 19, 2004.\nCordts\u2019s complaint further alleged that Chicago Tribune had provided him with a document entitled \u201cInformation Concerning Privacy Practices Under Tribune Group Benefits Plan and Employee Assistance Plan\u201d that ensured him that his health information would not be disclosed to unauthorized parties. Cordts asserted that the confidential information disclosed was of the kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the disclosure was especially devastating to him due to the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d he had with his ex-wife. The complaint next stated that defendants\n\u201cowed a duty of care to [Cordts] so as not to unreasonably give publicity to the private life of [Cordts] and additionally owed a duty of care to [Cordts] under 740 ILCS 110/3, commonly known as the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act and also under the Defendant Tribune\u2019s own privacy policies.\u201d\nDefendants did not file an answer but moved to dismiss the complaint, stating: \u201cCounts II and IV of the Complaint are claims for damages based upon the tort, invasion of privacy.\u201d Defendants asserted, citing Doe v. TCF Bank Illinois, 302 Ill. App. 3d 839, 841, 707 N.E.2d 220, 221 (1999), that to state a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must plead: \u201c(a) Defendants gave publicity; (b) to Plaintiff\u2019s private, not public, life; (c) the matter publicized was highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (d) the matter published was not a legitimate public concern.\u201d Defendant acknowledged that the publicity element of the tort may be satisfied by disclosing the matter to a small number of persons if those persons have a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with the plaintiff. However, defendants averred, again citing Doe, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 842-43, 707 N.E.2d at 221, that the publicity element of the tort is not satisfied where the persons to whom the information is disclosed have a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the information.\nDefendants argued that Cordts\u2019s ex-wife Kathleen had a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in Cordts\u2019s treatment for depression because he was \u201cfinancially responsible for medical and life insurance as well as college tuition and expenses for his daughter.\u201d In support of this contention, defendants attached a copy of the judgement order for the dissolution of the Cordts\u2019s marriage, dated December 1, 2005, as well as a \u201cmarital settlement agreement,\u201d which was executed by Cordts and Kathleen in conjunction with their divorce. In addition to setting forth Cordts\u2019s responsibilities with regard to maintaining health and life insurance policies for their child and for otherwise supporting her, the marital settlement agreement contained a section, entitled \u201cjoint parenting agreement,\u201d that stated in part:\n\u201cThe parties agree that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents is required and in the child\u2019s best interests, and accordingly the parties shall confer with each other about and jointly decide all important matters pertaining to the child\u2019s health, welfare, education and upbringing with a view toward arriving at a harmonious policy designed to promote the child\u2019s best interests.\n* * *\nThe parties agree that they are attempting to resolve their differences through the use of a joint parenting agreement and they recognize that the joint residential parenting schedule and the joint custody itself as provided herein may require future adjustments and changes to reflect the child\u2019s best interests in the future after taking into account:\nA. The ability of the parents to cooperate effectively and consistently with each other;\nB. The residential circumstances of each parent; and\nC. All other factors which my be relevant to the best interests of the child.\nThe parents also recognize that this joint parenting agreement is a dynamic concept subject to reevaluation and change based upon a change in circumstances of a parent or child including but not limited to illness, employment requirements and location, economic circumstances, the child\u2019s needs, requirements and development, change in residence locations and other social, psychological and economic changes.\u201d\nDefendants also attached an affidavit from Medeval employee, Channing, in which she stated that her daughter, Jaclyn, had been friends with the Cordts\u2019s daughter Catherine for several years. Channing also stated that Catherine had visited with Jaclyn many times in the Channing home, that Catherine attended a party at the Channing home on June 27, 2004, where she told Channing that she planned to attend DePaul University in the fall of 2004, and that Catherine visited the Channing home during the 2004 Christmas holidays and reported \u25a0 that she had, in fact, begun attending DePaul University.\nIn response to defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, Cordts first cited the same elements of an action for public disclosure of private facts as asserted by defendants. Cordts then denied that Kathleen had a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in knowing that her husband was receiving treatment for depression, stating that the fact was \u201ccompletely irrelevant to whether he would be able to pay for medical, dental and life insurance, as well as his daughter\u2019s college tuition\u201d as required by the couple\u2019s marital settlement agreement. Amidst this argument, Cordts further stated that defendants\u2019 disclosure of his confidential information was in violation of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (hereinafter Confidentiality Act) (740 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2004)), which \u201cstringently and fiercely protects the disclosure of such information.\u201d Cordts also quoted section 3 of the Confidentiality Act, which states that a person\u2019s mental health information \u201cshall not be disclosed except as provided in this Act\u201d (740 ILCS 110/3 (West 2004)), and averred that none of the Act\u2019s exceptions to disclosure applied in his case.\nDefendants replied to Cordts\u2019s response to their motion to dismiss, contending again that Cordts\u2019s ex-wife had a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the disclosed information. Additionally, in a footnote to their reply, defendants stated:\n\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s references to the [Confidentiality Act] are entirely irrelevant to this Court\u2019s determination as to whether there was a publication in a tort action for invasion of privacy. Indeed, plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action under the [Confidentiality Act.] Any references thereto are nothing more than a red herring and should be ignored.\u201d\nThe record on appeal does not reflect that oral arguments were held on defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, nor that any evidentiary hearing was conducted. The circuit court issued its memorandum opinion and order on March 15, 2006. In summarizing the parties\u2019 arguments in the \u201cfactual background\u201d section of its memorandum opinion, the court stated:\n\u201c[T]he Plaintiff *** argues that his ex-wife does not have a natural and proper interest in his mental state as it does not directly affect her. He points out that his treatment for depression is irrelevant to his ability to pay for his daughter\u2019s expenses. Further, the Plaintiff contends that disclosure of his treatment for depression was in violation of the [Confidentiality Act.]\n*** [T]he Defendants argue that there is no more \u2018natural and proper\u2019 interest than a parent\u2019s awareness of circumstances that may adversely affect the well being of her children. Thus, a mother has a natural and proper interest in her child\u2019s father\u2019s mental health, ability to work, ability to support the child and ability to participation [sic] father/daughter activities.\u201d\nIn the \u201cdiscussion and ruling\u201d section of its memorandum opinion, the circuit court stated:\n\u201cIn the instant case, the Plaintiffs treatment for depression was disclosed to his ex-wife, who, all parties concede, has a special relationship with the Plaintiff. The evidence in the record shows that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay for insurance coverage, tuition and expenses for his daughter. Further, the Plaintiff and his ex-wife shared joint custody of the child, although it was agreed that the child would reside primarily with the mother, and made joint decisions regarding the child\u2019s welfare. His ex-wife, the child\u2019s mother, has a legitimate interest in anything that would adversely affect her child and the support of her child both financially and emotionally. The mental state of a parent affects the parent\u2019s ability to work and thus provide for the child financially and it affects the parent\u2019s ability to interact with the child and thus provide for the child emotionally. Therefore, the ex-wife, Kathleen Cordts, would have a natural and proper interest in her ex-husband\u2019s mental health as it impacts their child\u2019s support and well being. Further, it also impacts the ex-wife as she would be responsible for the entire support of her child should the father become incapacitated. Therefore, the Court finds that as Kathleen Cordts had a natural and proper interest in the mental health of her ex-husband, the claim for disclosure of private facts cannot stand and counts II and IV must be dismissed.\u201d\nOn appeal, Cordts contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint on the basis of the \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d exception to the common law tort of public disclosure of private facts because his condition and treatment had no bearing on his duties to either his child or ex-wife. Cordts further contends that the circuit court\u2019s dismissal was in error because defendants\u2019 disclosure was in violation of the Confidentiality Act. In support of the judgment below, defendants repeat their contention that their disclosure was not tortious on the grounds that Cordts\u2019s ex-wife did, in fact, have a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the information because Cordts\u2019s condition could potentially affect his ability to support his child. Defendants further contend that Cordts never actually alleged a claim based on the Confidentiality Act. Finally, defendants alternatively contend that the Confidentiality Act has abrogated the common law action for public disclosure of private facts, at least with regard to the subjects covered by the Act, and, therefore, Cordts\u2019s failure to plead the Act has left him with no cause of action at all.\nANALYSIS\nAs noted, counts II and IV of Cordts\u2019s complaint were dismissed pursuant to defendants\u2019 section 2 \u2014 619 motion.\n\u201cA section 2 \u2014 619 motion to dismiss *** admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint and raises defects, defenses or other affirmative matters *** which appear on the face of the complaint or are established by external submissions which act to defeat the plaintiffs claim, thus enabling the court to dismiss the complaint after considering issues of law or easily proved issues of fact.\u201d Lipinski v. Martin J. Kelly Oldsmobile, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 1139, 1144, 759 N.E.2d 66, 69 (2001).\n\u201cWhen a court rules on a section 2 \u2014 619 motion to dismiss, it \u2018must interpret all pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.\u2019 \u201d Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 367-68, 799 N.E.2d 273, 278 (2003), quoting In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill. 2d 179, 189, 680 N.E.2d 265 (1997). We review section 2 \u2014 619 dismissals de novo. Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 368, 799 N.E.2d at 278.\nWe first address the circuit court\u2019s section 2 \u2014 619 dismissal of Cordts\u2019s common law claim for public disclosure of private facts. Both parties agree that to state a common law claim for invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must plead that: \u201c(1) publicity was given to the disclosure of private facts; (2) the facts were private, and not public, facts; and (3) the matter made public was such as to be highly offensive to a reasonable person.\u201d Miller v. Motorola Inc., 202 Ill. App. 3d 976, 978, 560 N.E.2d 900, 902 (1990), citing W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts \u00a7117, at 856-57 (5th ed. 1984); see also Johnson v. K mart Corp., 311 Ill. App. 3d 573, 579, 723 N.E.2d 1192, 1197 (2000); Doe, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 841, 707 N.E.2d at 221 (adding a fourth element that \u201cthe matter published was not of legitimate public concern\u201d). Generally, to satisfy the publicity element of the tort, a plaintiff must show that the information was disclosed to the public at large; however, the publicity requirement may be satisfied where a disclosure is made to a small number of people who have a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with the plaintiff. See Miller, 202 Ill. App. 3d at 980, 560 N.E.2d at 903 (\u201ccourts have realized that in circumstances where a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and \u2018the public\u2019 to whom the information has been disclosed, the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people\u201d); Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80, 104-05, 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977) (\u201cCommunication of embarrassing facts about an individual to a public not concerned with that individual and with whom the individual is not concerned obviously is not a \u2018serious interference\u2019 with plaintiffs right to privacy, although it might be \u2018unnecessary\u2019 or \u2018unreasonable.\u2019 An invasion of a plaintiffs right to privacy is important if it exposes private facts to a public whose knowledge of those facts would be embarrassing to the plaintiff. Such a public might be the general public, if the person were a public figure, or a particular public such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors, if the person were not a public figure\u201d), overruled on other grounds by Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Board of Education, 455 Mich. 285, 565 N.W.2d 650 (1997).\nSince, as noted, a section 2 \u2014 619 motion to dismiss \u201cadmits the legal sufficiency of the complaint and raises defects, defenses or other affirmative matters\u201d (Lipinski, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 1144, 759 N.E.2d at 69), defendants, in bringing their section 2 \u2014 619 motion, have tacitly conceded that Cordts had a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with his ex-wife that would satisfy the publicity element of the tort despite the fact that the disclosure was not made to the general public. However, defendants contend by way of affirmative defense that the disclosure was, nevertheless, excusable because Kathleen had a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the information. Specifically, defendants contend that Kathleen had a right to know the information because Cordts was responsible for helping support their child pursuant to the couple\u2019s marital settlement agreement and his mental condition could potentially hinder his ability to meet his obligations, financially and otherwise.\nUnder prevailing law, the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d exception to the requirement that the disclosure be made to the general public will not apply where the person in the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with the plaintiff has a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the information disclosed. See Midwest Glass Co. v. Stanford Development Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d 130, 135, 339 N.E.2d 274, 278 (1975); Doe, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 843, 707 N.E.2d at 222; Roehrborn v. Lambert, 277 Ill. App. 3d 181, 185, 660 N.E.2d 180, 185 (1995). We note, however, that although a person in a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with a plaintiff is more likely than others to have a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the plaintiffs private information by virtue of that \u201cspecial relationship,\u201d the existence of a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d does not necessarily create a \u201cnatural and proper interest.\u201d See Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 135, 339 N.E.2d at 278; Doe, 302, Ill. App. 3d at 843, 707 N.E.2d at 222. What constitutes a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d is discussed in Midwest Glass Co. and Doe. In Midwest Glass Co., one of the first Illinois cases to discuss the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d exception and the \u201cnatural and proper\u201d limitation to that exception, a condominium developer failed to pay a glass company for the installation of mirrors in several condominiums. Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 135, 339 N.E.2d at 278. The glass company then sent letters to purchasers and prospective purchasers of condominiums informing them that payment for the mirrors was overdue and that a mechanic\u2019s lien would be filed. Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 132, 339 N.E.2d at 276. The appellate court found that the glass company\u2019s disclosure of the developer\u2019s debt was not tortious, noting that the letters were not intended \u201cto vilify nor to subject [the developer] to continuous harassments,\u201d but were a reasonable way for the glass company to \u201cpursue its debtor and persuade payment.\u201d Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 135, 339 N.E.2d at 278. The court further noted that the disclosure was not made to \u201cthe general public but only to a limited number of persons who had a natural and proper interest in the ability and reputation of [the developer] to pay its debts.\u201d Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 134-35, 339 N.E.2d at 278. Similarly, in Doe, the appellate court held that a bank\u2019s disclosure of the plaintiffs credit card debt to his spouse was not tortious because she had a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in the information inasmuch as she could potentially be liable for those debts and because plaintiffs debts decreased the value of her interest in the marital property. Doe, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 843, 707 N.E.2d at 222; see also Roehrborn, 277 Ill. App. 3d at 185, 660 N.E.2d at 185 (police chiefs disclosure to an administrator at a police training institute that a probationary police officer had failed polygraph and psychological tests was not tortious because the institute had a \u201clegitimate\u201d and \u201cnatural and proper interest in knowing the performance of potential applicants *** on the psychological and polygraph tests\u201d); Stern v. Great Western Bank, 959 F. Supp. 478, 483 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (plaintiffs ex-wife\u2019s attorney had a natural and proper interest in plaintiffs financial records as disclosed by his mortgage lender because plaintiff had put his financial records at issue by asserting that he was unable to contribute to his son\u2019s education in a state court action brought by his ex-wife).\nThus, as can be ascertained from the foregoing cases, a recipient of private information may have a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in information that relates to potential future harm or liability to that person. For instance, the court in Doe found that the plaintiffs wife had a legitimate concern in knowing of the plaintiffs debts because they could \u201cpotentially adversely [affect] her future financial security,\u201d and because \u201cshe [was] potentially liable\u201d for them. (Emphasis added.) Doe, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 843, 707 N.E.2d at 222. Similarly, the court in Midwest Glass Co. found that condominium owners and potential purchasers of condominiums had a legitimate interest in the fact that the developer had not paid for mirrors in the condominiums because the glass company could file a mechanic\u2019s lien, although it had not yet filed any hen and was not certain to do so. Midwest Glass Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d at 135, 339 N.E.2d at 278.\nAccordingly, we would have to agree with defendants that an ex-wife would have a natural and proper interest in learning about any debilitating condition suffered by her ex-husband that could impact his ability to maintain support of their children. In this case, no one disputes that Cordts was liable to provide support to his daughter and that if he ceased to be able to support her, that obligation would fall solely to Kathleen, the child\u2019s mother. While it would be of interest to have a more detailed description of Cordts\u2019s mental condition to fully ascertain the potentiality of harm to Kathleen, as the recipient of the private information regarding Cordts\u2019s mental condition, the record that Cordts has supplied us shows only that he was receiving treatment for depression and that he sought short-term disability benefits. Cordts, by his claim, tacitly concedes that his mental condition was such that a disability claim was appropriate. Therefore, in the absence of any other information tending to minimize the potential effect of his condition, we conclude that the fact that Cordts sought disability benefits was sufficient to indicate that his condition could have potentially impacted his ability to support his daughter and, thereby, could have harmed his ex-wife, Kathleen. Consequently, we cannot disagree with the circuit court\u2019s determination that the common law action should be dismissed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619.\nCordts, however, would contend that even if his common law claim fails by reason of the \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d exception, his action is maintainable under the Confidentiality Act. The Confidentiality Act provides that \u201cany record kept by a therapist or by an agency in the course of providing mental health *** service to a recipient\u201d and \u201cany communication made by a recipient or other person to a therapist or to or in the presence of other persons during or in connection with providing mental health *** services to a recipient,\u201d including \u201cinformation which indicates that a person is a recipient\u201d of mental health services, \u201cshall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in this Act.\u201d 740 ILCS 110/2, 3(a) (West 2004). Section 15 states: \u201cAny person aggrieved by a violation of this Act may sue for damages, an injunction, or other appropriate relief.\u201d 740 ILCS 110/15 (West 2004). The Confidentiality Act\u2019s specifically enumerated exceptions for where disclosures can be made without the mental health care recipient\u2019s consent include, by way of example, disclosures for purposes of reviewing a therapist\u2019s or agency\u2019s licensure (740 ILCS 110/7(a) (West 2004)), interagency disclosures (740 ILCS 110/7.1 (West 2004)), disclosures to a therapist\u2019s supervisors or peers for review (740 ILCS 110/9 (West 2004)), disclosure with regard to sexually violent persons (740 ILCS 110/9.3 (West 2004)), and disclosures in civil, criminal, and other proceedings (740 ILCS 110/10 (West 2004)). Our supreme court has emphasized that these few exceptions to the Confidentiality Act are strictly limited and are not to be expanded. See, e.g., Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 71-72, 755 N.E.2d 1, 9 (2001) (\u201c[i]n each instance where disclosure is allowed under the Act, the legislature has been careful to restrict disclosure to that which is necessary to accomplish a particular purpose. Exceptions to the Act are narrowly crafted. [Citation.] When viewed as a whole, the Act constitutes a \u2018strong statement\u2019 by the General Assembly about the importance of keeping mental health records confidential. [Citation.] *** Consequently, anyone seeking the nonconsensual release of mental health information faces a formidable challenge and must show that disclosure is authorized by the Act\u201d); Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47, 60, 765 N.E.2d 1002, 1010 (2002) (\u201cIn each case where disclosure is allowed under the Act, the legislature has been careful to restrict disclosure to that which is necessary to accomplish a particular purpose. Exceptions to the Act are narrowly crafted\u201d); accord Mandziara v. Canulli, 299 Ill. App. 3d 593, 599, 701 N.E.2d 127, 132-33 (1998) (\u201cThe Act is \u2018carefully drawn to maintain the confidentiality of mental health records except in the specific circumstances specifically enumerated.\u2019 [Citation.] *** If we were to hold Canulli did not violate the Act merely because he did not look at Mandziara\u2019s records, we would be rewriting the statute, effectively eroding unmistakable legislative intent under the weight of judicial fiat\u201d). The fact that a person has a \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d in another person\u2019s mental health records is not included in the Confidentiality Act\u2019s enumerated exceptions. Therefore, we find that the \u201cnatural and proper interest\u201d defense to the common law tort of public disclosure of private facts is not a defense to a claim based on the Confidentiality Act.\nDefendants, however, contend that Cordts never attempted to state a claim for violation of the Confidentiality Act in counts II and IV of his complaint. Thus, according to defendants, Cordts has waived his right to invoke the Confidentiality Act on appeal. In that regard, we note that defendants do not purport to contest the substantive applicability of the Confidentiality Act to the instant facts, but merely contend that no such cause of action was invoked. We disagree with defendants and find that Cordts did, in fact, plead enough to state a cause of action for violation of the Confidentiality Act.\nAlthough Cordts\u2019s complaint does not recite specific provisions of the Confidentiality Act, it does state that defendants \u201cadditionally owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the [Confidentiality Act].\u201d Illinois Supreme Court Rule 133(a) states: \u201cIf a breach of statutory duty is alleged [in a pleading], the statute shall be cited in connection with the allegation.\u201d 134 Ill. 2d R. 133(a). \u201cThe fact that the statute need not be quoted, only cited, implies that its purpose is to give notice to the court and the opposing parties that the pleader is basing his case, at least in part, on a particular statute.\u201d 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice \u00a724.9, at 393 (1989); see also 735 ILCS 2 \u2014 612(b) (West 2004) (\u201cNo pleading is bad in substance which contains such information as reasonably informs the opposite party of the nature of the claim or defense which he or she is called upon to meet\u201d). In this case, Cordts specifically named and cited the Confidentiality Act and, as noted, stated that defendants owed him a duty under the Act. In each count, Cordts also sets forth allegations of fact that, on their face, would suffice to state a cause of action under the Act\u2019s provisions. See 740 ILCS 110/2, 3, 5, 15 (West 2004). Moreover, defendants were on notice and the court was aware that Cordts had invoked the Confidentiality Act. As noted, defendants addressed the fact in a footnote of their reply to Cordts\u2019s response to their motion to dismiss and the court acknowledged the argument in the \u201cfactual background\u201d section of its memorandum opinion and order. Accordingly, defendants\u2019 contention that Cordts did not attempt to state a cause of action based on the Confidentiality Act is unavailing.\nWe are cognizant, however, that Cordts\u2019s complaint is formally defective insofar as it intermingles the statutory Confidentiality Act claim with the common law invasion of privacy claim. In that regard, section 2 \u2014 613(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure states: \u201cParties may plead as many causes of action, counterclaims, defenses, and matters in reply as they may have, and each shall be separately designated and numbered.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 613(a) (West 2004). Moreover, we recognize that Cordts has continued to intermingle the two claims on appeal. However, despite these formal defects, neither defendants nor the circuit court ever challenged the sufficiency of Cordts\u2019s allegations under the Confidentiality Act and, therefore, the claim is not now dismissible on that basis. See 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 612(a), (c) (West 2004) (\u201cIf any pleading is insufficient in substance or form the court may order a fuller or more particular statement. If the pleadings do not sufficiently define the issues the court may order other pleadings.\u201d \u201cAll defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court are waived\u201d); 735 ILCS 2 \u2014 615 (West 2004) (\u201cAll objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion. The motion shall point out specifically the defects complained of, and shall ask for appropriate relief, such as *** that a pleading be made more definite and certain in a specified *** manner\u201d).\nIn that regard, we also note that had defendants properly challenged the sufficiency of Cordts\u2019s claim under the Confidentiality Act through a section 2 \u2014 615 motion, Cordts would have been entitled to an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Richard v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 66 Ill. App. 3d 825, 842, 383 N.E.2d 1242, 1256 (1978), quoting Dinn Oil Co. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 87 Ill. App. 2d 206, 211-12 (1967) (\u201c \u2018 a cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it appears that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle the pleader to relief, and then only if it is apparent that even after amendment, if leave to amend is sought, no cause \u00f3f action can be stated\u2019 \u201d (emphasis omitted)); Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432, 467, 605 N.E.2d 493, 508 (1992) (\u201cIn Illinois, courts are encouraged to freely and liberally allow the amendment of pleadings\u201d). The same is not true of a section 2 \u2014 619 motion, where the defendant admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint (Lipinski, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 1144, 759 N.E.2d at 69), and where once the defendant satisfies the initial burden of going forward based on affirmative matter, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff. See Nichol v. Stass, 192 Ill. 2d 233, 247, 735 N.E.2d 582, 591 (2000). Therefore, we find that the circuit court erred in dismissing Cordts\u2019s Confidentiality Act claim pursuant to defendants\u2019 section 2 \u2014 619 motion to dismiss.\nFinally, because we have found that Cordts did, in fact, attempt to state a claim based on the Confidentiality Act, and because that claim\u2019s sufficiency was not challenged by way of a section 2 \u2014 615 motion, we need not address whether the Confidentiality Act has preempted the common law action of invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts in the context of mental health information. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded.\nFITZGERALD SMITH, EJ., and O\u2019MALLEY, J., concur.\nIn a footnote to their appellate brief defendants contend that any attempt by Cordts to amend his complaint to add a Confidentiality Act claim should be barred because the applicable statute of limitations has run. This contention is without merit since we have determined that the original complaint, although formally defective, sufficiently invoked the Confidentiality Act through citation and through the pleading of facts that fall under the Act\u2019s purview. Moreover, in any event, an amendment to Cordts\u2019s Confidentiality Act claim would not be time barred because it would relate back to the original, timely filed complaint. See McCorry v. Gooneratne, 332 Ill. App. 3d 935, 946, 775 N.E.2d 591, 601 (2002).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE JOSEPH GORDON" } ], "attorneys": [ "John F. Winters, Jr., and Ruth M. Degnan, both of Winters, Enright, Salzetta & O\u2019Brien, L.L.C., of Chicago, for appellant.", "John W Powers and Karen M. Osgood, both of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of Chicago, and J. Laurence Kienlen, of Kienlen & Pietsch, of Wheaton, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MICHAEL CORDTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201406\u20141158\nOpinion filed December 8, 2006.\nJohn F. Winters, Jr., and Ruth M. Degnan, both of Winters, Enright, Salzetta & O\u2019Brien, L.L.C., of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn W Powers and Karen M. Osgood, both of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of Chicago, and J. Laurence Kienlen, of Kienlen & Pietsch, of Wheaton, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0601-01", "first_page_order": 617, "last_page_order": 629 }