Voyeurism lawsuit against Coeur d’Alene surgeon to proceed

COEUR d’ALENE — The civil lawsuit against an orthopedic surgeon accused of hiding a camera in a staff bathroom at his medical office will proceed, a Kootenai County judge ruled Thursday.

In addition to criminal charges of video voyeurism and sexual exploitation of a child by preparation of sexually exploitative material, Spencer Greendyke, 68, is facing a lawsuit filed by 16 anonymous plaintiffs, including former employees, as well as the spouses and children of the former employees. Greendyke’s wife and medical practice are also named in the lawsuit. 

Both the criminal charges and civil lawsuit stem from March, when one of Greendyke’s employees contacted Coeur d’Alene police about digital storage devices at Greendyke’s medical office, River’s Edge Orthopedics. 

The devices contained video footage from “what appeared to be a hidden camera in a staff bathroom and showed victims in various stages of undress,” a news release said. The recordings depicted both adults and children, according to court documents. All known victims have been identified.   

Police obtained a $1.5 million warrant for Greendyke’s arrest April 4. Greendyke turned himself in the following day and later posted bail. As a condition of release, he surrendered his passport and must remain in Idaho.  

Filed in April, the civil complaint alleges that Greendyke “placed hidden cameras in the office in sensitive areas, surreptitiously taking video and audio recording” without the knowledge of the people being recorded. This behavior allegedly began as early as 2005, according to court documents.  

The plaintiffs also allege that Greendyke made secret recordings during surgical procedures and recorded visitors to his home.  

Three plaintiffs further allege that they were “constructively discharged” from their employment with Greendyke “based upon the unendurable working conditions.”  

“Plaintiffs are going through severe emotional distress with physical manifestations from discovering the above facts and related fallout,” the civil complaint said in part.  

The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial and are seeking awards of more than $10,000 for economic and non-economic damages. 

Legal counsel representing Greendyke filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which First District Judge Barry McHugh denied Thursday. 

Greendyke’s attorney, Craig Zanetti, had argued that the civil complaint doesn’t specify that the plaintiffs have damages in excess of $10,000, the threshold for the lawsuit to go through district court. Zanetti also asserted that having 16 anonymous plaintiffs in one case creates challenges when it comes to discovery and impedes the public’s right of access. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that anonymity is both permissible and appropriate in this case, due to the sensitive and embarrassing nature of the allegations and the involvement of children. 

“We have minor children and guardians of minor children,” said attorney Erik Smith, who represents three of the plaintiffs. “The case is very fresh and raw.” 

Ruling from the bench, McHugh noted that “anonymity should only be used in unusual cases” because it runs afoul of the public’s right to access. This is one such case, McHugh said. At this stage, public interest is not best served by requiring the plaintiffs to be publicly identified. 

“That does not necessarily mean the anonymity will continue at every stage,” McHugh said, adding that the court may later issue a protective order that would allow for the plaintiffs to be identified to the involved parties, only for the purpose of discovery. 

McHugh also granted legal counsel for the plaintiffs leave to amend the civil complaint and add specifics regarding damages and the timeline of when the acts of voyeurism allegedly occurred.