With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (presumably to aid in their care); the Complaint does not clearly indicate why Torsiello would have a privacy interest in such information vis-á-vis WIW. Without more, the Complaint does not plausibly plead misuse of any of the information allegedly removed from Torsiello’s locker. Therefore, this count must be dismissed. 2. Intrusion In Poltrock v. NJ Automotive Accounts Mgmt. Co., District Judge Wolfson outlined the nature of this claim: [T]he intrusion must be “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” a determination that turns on what a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy is with respect to the item or area searched or intruded upon. White [v. White], 344 N.J.Super. [211], at 222, 781 A.2d 85 [ (2001) ]; see also State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 200, 576 A.2d 793 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, an intrusion is not highly offensive

A: holding that expectations of privacy are established by general social norms
B: recognizing general enforceability of plan provisions reducing benefits by amount of any social security benefits
C: holding prisoners had no clearly established right to privacy in medical records in 1995
D: holding that government informants are not members of a particular social group
A.