Cobra Pipeline Co. v. Gas Natural, Inc.
132 F. Supp. 3d 945
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- Cobra Pipeline (owned/operated by Richard Osborne) sued Ohio Utilities employees for accessing Cobra’s SageQuest fleet-tracking web portal after Osborne’s termination, claiming violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Wiretap Act, and a state "civil recovery for criminal act" claim under Ohio law.
- Defendants Whelan and Heindik used a formerly provided SageQuest login to view real‑time and historical GPS/fleet data through SageQuest’s user-facing website; they said access was for safety/monitoring Osborne.
- SageQuest collects GPS data via cellular towers, processes it at an operations/data center, and presents continuously updated vehicle information through a password‑protected web portal; historical data (three months, retrievable on request) is available via the portal.
- The parties agreed the website “presents” information to logged‑in users and that viewing does not involve transmission to a distinct recipient; user activity logs can show login times.
- Cobra moved for partial summary judgment on the SCA claim; defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court reviewed whether the accessed materials were in “electronic storage” (SCA) or were “intercepted” (Wiretap Act), and whether Ohio statutes created a civil cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SageQuest data accessed was in “electronic storage” under the SCA | SageQuest data (including historical records) is stored at SageQuest and thus constitutes electronic storage subject to the SCA | Data presented on the user‑facing website are at their destination (not in transit) and were not backup copies; thus not in electronic storage under §2701 | Court: Not in electronic storage under either §2701(A) or (B); SCA claim fails |
| Whether accessing SageQuest constituted an “interception” under the Wiretap Act | Viewing live and historical fleet communications amounted to intercepting electronic communications | No contemporaneous interception occurred; defendants accessed data at the intended endpoint (the web portal), not during transmission to a recipient | Court: No interception as a matter of law; Wiretap Act claim fails |
| Whether Ohio Revised Code §§ 2307.60/2307.61 create a standalone civil remedy for acts constituting state criminal offenses (R.C. 2913.04) | Defendants’ conduct would be a felony under R.C. 2913.04, so civil recovery under §§ 2307.60/2307.61 is appropriate | §§ 2307.60/2307.61 only govern evidentiary rules/damages when a civil cause of action otherwise exists; they do not create independent causes of action | Court: Plaintiff failed to identify an underlying civil statute; state law claim dismissed |
| Summary judgment standard / burden allocation | Plaintiff sought partial SJ on SCA; argued facts show unauthorized access | Defendants sought full SJ, arguing law precludes recovery even accepting Plaintiff’s facts | Court: Viewed facts in Plaintiff’s favor but found legal deficiencies; denied Plaintiff’s SJ and granted Defendants’ SJ in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses private electronic bulletin boards; parties there stipulated messages were in electronic storage)
- Theofel v. Farey‑Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (adopts broader view that §2701(b)(1)(B) covers backup copies including post‑transmission storage)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standards regarding burden on movant and nonmovant)
- Killion v. KeHE Distribs., LLC, 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rule 56 standard on summary judgment)
- Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2009) (circuit precedent referenced on definition/application of interception under Wiretap Act)