Lazette v. Kulmatycki, 949 F. Supp. 2d 748

Background

Verizon provided a company Blackberry to Lazette for work; she used a personal Gmail on it for some messages.
Kulmatycki, Lazette’s supervisor, allegedly accessed Lazette’s Gmail without authorization for eighteen months, reading about Lazette’s private matters.
Lazette alleges Kulmatycki read and disclosed the contents of emails to others.
Plaintiff asserts five claims: SCA (Stored Communications Act), Title III (OMRSA), Ohio invasion of privacy/seclusion, Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.04(B), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Defendants move to dismiss; court denies in part and grants in part, with amendments allowed for IIED.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SCA § 2701 applies to the Gmail access	Lazette asserts unauthorized access to her Gmail via Verizon device.	Kulmatycki’s access falls within authorized use or exempted facilities; device is not a ‘facility.’	SCA applies; some opened-before-plaintiff emails constitute violation; but not for opened-before access.
Whether Verizon is vicariously liable under SCA § 2701	Verizon is liable for Kulmatycki’s actions in scope of employment.	Exemption under § 2701(c)(1) may immunize provider.	Verizon’s vicarious liability survives; motion to dismiss denied.
Whether Title III claim under § 2520 is stated	Disclosures of emails fall within Title III civil liability.	Accessing stored emails is not interception under § 2510(4)–(5).	Title III claim dismissed.
Whether Ohio invasion of privacy/seclusion claim survives	Reading tens of thousands of private emails constitutes intrusion into seclusion.	Dependent on warnings and privacy expectations; prima facie insufficient.	Viable intrusion claim survives; further factual development required.
Whether O.R.C. § 2913.04(B) claim is stated	Unauthorized computer access under criminal-kickback-like statute is actionable.	Statute targets hacking; ownership of device not necessary.	Claim stated; statute broad enough to cover conduct.
Whether IIED claim survives or requires amendment	Severe emotional distress from invasion is plausible.	Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal.	IIED claim denied at pleading stage; plaintiff granted four weeks to amend with plausible injury allegations.

Key Cases Cited

State Wide Photocopy Corp. v. Tokai Financial Services, Inc., 909 F. Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (SCA purposes not exclusively hackers; broad application)
Sherman v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (SCA § 2701 applies to unauthorized access generally)
In re iPhone Application Litigation, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Cell phone not categorically a ‘facility’; weighs device vs server)
Crowley v. CyberSource Corp., 166 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (If both accessed device and access point are facilities, odd results)
Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (Implied consent in surveillance limited; not blanket permission)
U.S. v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688 (2d Cir. 1996) (Implied consent considerations in monitoring/ interception)