Bower v. Bower
808 F. Supp. 2d 348
D. Mass.2011Background
- Bower sues for custody interference, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of filial consortium against El-Nady and EgyptAir; El-Nady has not appeared.
- Bower seeks to compel Yahoo! and Google to produce all emails from El-Nady’s accounts from July 1, 2009 onward via subpoenas under Rule 45.
- Yahoo! and Google contend production is barred by the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2702 et seq.
- Court agrees the SCA precludes production absent statutory exception allowing civil discovery subpoenas to providers.
- Bower argues El-Nady’s fugitive status implies consent or should be deemed to consent; court rejects implied consent theory.
- Court declines to compel production and denies motion to compel; notes no Rule 37 sanction posture is presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Yahoo! and Google be compelled to produce El-Nady emails under the SCA? | Bower argues subpoenas seek relevant emails; SCA does not authorize civil subpoenas. | Yahoo! and Google rely on SCA to bar production in civil discovery. | No; SCA bars production in civil discovery subpoenas. |
| Does El-Nady's fugitive status create implied consent to disclose emails? | Bower contends fugitive status implies consent to disclosure. | El-Nady has not consented or participated; no implied consent arises from fugitive status. | No implied consent; fugitive status does not establish consent to disclosure. |
| Should the court order El-Nady to consent or deem consent to production of emails? | Request that El-Nady be deemed to have consented if she does not respond. | No basis to deem consent without explicit participation or authorization. | Court declines to compel or deem consent; unresolved sanctions pending separate motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F.Supp.2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008) (courts hold providers may not produce emails in response to civil subpoenas under SCA)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (fugitive disentitlement doctrine not applied to deny custody relief)
- Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1996) (defendant may defend in civil action despite being a fugitive in related case)
- Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (Rule 34 document requests; courts will not enforce provider subpoenas but may permit direct requests)