Jennings v. Jennings
736 S.E.2d 242
S.C.2012Background
- Broome hacked Jennings’s Yahoo! account by guessing security questions and read his emails.
- Broome printed incriminating emails and gave them to Gail Jennings’s attorney and a private investigator.
- Jennings sued Gail, Broome, and others for invasion of privacy, conspiracy, HSA violations, and later SCA violations.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to Broome on all claims, including the SCA claim; court of appeals reversed as to the SCA claim, finding emails stored for backup protection.
- South Carolina Supreme Court reverses, holding the emails were not in electronic storage under the SCA.
- Broome is married to Gail Jennings’s son from a prior marriage; statutory definitions of electronic storage are incorporated from the Wiretap Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the emails in electronic storage under the SCA? | Jennings argues the emails were in electronic storage (backup storage). | Broome contends the definition requires both temporary storage during transmission and backup storage, so emails here are not stored. | Emails were not in electronic storage. |
| What interpretation of electronic storage governs the SCA in this context? | Jennings supports the broader view that storage can be either temporary (A) or backup (B). | Broome supports the traditional interpretation requiring a narrow reading of storage. | Court does not resolve which interpretation is preferred for all cases; reverses based on the specific storage status of the emails. |
| Did opening the emails remove them from electronic storage status? | Not explicitly argued beyond backup-protection theory; focus is on storage status prior to opening. | Emails were opened and thus reached their final destination, not in electronic storage. | Opened emails are not in electronic storage under the statute. |
| Are backups created by the service provider encompassed by subsection (B) of §2510(17)? | Backup copies stored by the provider for administrative purposes should be protected. | Backup protection applies only to unopened messages or to copies kept for provider administration, not to user copies left on server after opening. | Emails were not backups under subsection (B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (broader interpretation allows storage under either (A) or (B))
- Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Insurance Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003) (storage scope under SCA broader than Theofel)
- McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1 (Ct. App. 1987) (statutory interpretation leaves no difference where rule applies)
- Jennings v. Jennings, 389 S.C. 190 (Ct. App. 2010) (intermediate appellate ruling on SCA storage status)