Fayelynn Sams v. Yahoo! Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7464
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sams appeals a district court order dismissing her putative class SCA claims against Yahoo! with prejudice.
- Yahoo! disclosed Sams’ basic noncontent subscriber information to Georgia authorities under subpoenas.
- Subpoenas were issued by the Georgia District Attorney and a Georgia Superior Court judge; deadlines set for January 28, 2009.
- Yahoo! produced the requested information before the deadline, prompting Sams to allege violations and challenge the subpoenas’ validity under Georgia Uniform Act.
- The district court held Yahoo! immune under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e); case was later transferred to the Northern District of California for proceedings, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
- Sams timely appealed the district court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yahoo! is immune under § 2707(e) for good faith reliance on a grand jury subpoena. | Sams argues subpoenas were invalid; Yahoo! cannot claim good faith reliance. | Yahoo! contends good faith reliance applies if the subpoena appears valid on its face and there is no notice of irregularity. | Yahoo! is immune under § 2707(e). |
| Whether Yahoo!’s early production before the deadline negates immunity or renders it a “voluntary” disclosure. | Early production violated the subpoena terms and could be voluntary disclosure. | Early production complied with subpoenas' authority and was not voluntary disclosure; no legal sanctions preclude immunity. | Early production did not defeat immunity; not voluntary disclosure. |
| Whether Georgia Uniform Act applicability affects Yahoo!’s immunity. | Uniform Act governs subpoenas to foreign corporations; Yahoo! argues Act does not apply to a foreign corporation with a presence in Georgia. | Regardless of Uniform Act application, Yahoo! is immune under § 2707(e). | Uniform Act issue did not defeat immunity; immunity still applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2006) (good faith reliance test for SCA immunity)
- Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Va. 2004) (discussion of good faith reliance under SCA; not controlling here)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility review in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes law/fact questions in determining reasonableness of conduct)
- United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2007) (good faith reliance where facially-valid indicia; indicia of authority)