479 F. App'x 162
10th Cir.2012Background
- Divorce between Marcie Isaacson and Joe Isaacson awarded joint custody of five-year-old twins.
- Dr. Isaacson installed recording devices on his home phones and recorded the boys' conversations with Ms. Isaacson from February to July 2009.
- Ms. Isaacson learned of the taping during custody litigation and moved to suppress the recordings in June 2010.
- In June 2010, state court bench ruling held both state and federal wiretap acts applied, suppression was warranted, and no exceptions applied.
- Ms. Isaacson filed a federal complaint (June 29, 2010) alleging violations of federal and Oklahoma wiretap acts; Dr. Isaacson moved for summary judgment on affirmative defenses.
- District court granted summary judgment for Dr. Isaacson (April 6, 2011) on the asserted exceptions; Ms. Isaacson’s res judicata challenge was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal wiretap exceptions apply | Isaacson contends exceptions do not authorize the taping. | Isaacson argues consent, vicarious consent, and extension phone exceptions apply. | Facts support application of asserted exceptions; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether res judicata bars the federal claims | Isaacson argues state-court ruling precludes federal claims. | Dr. Isaacson contends finality and scope do not support res judicata. | District court rejected res judicata; appeal notice insufficient to challenge; affirmed. |
| Whether new-evidence/Rule 59/60 motion justified relief | Ms. Isaacson claimed new evidence undermined summary judgment. | Dr. Isaacson argued evidence was available previously and not properly presented. | District court denial affirmed; no basis to reconsider. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (appeals should correct district court errors on theories raised below)
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and evidentiary burden)
- Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 653 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment de novo review framework)