Leon Modrowski v. John Pigatto
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6999
7th Cir.2013Background
- Modrowski sued TAQ Properties, Capps Management, and Pigattos in 2009 over control of his personal email after termination in 2008; he alleged the defendants caused loss of years of personal emails and records.
- Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701), the Federal Wire Tap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), plus state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims related to voluntary linking of accounts and dismissed the CFAA claim for lack of injury under $5,000, with leave to cure.
- Modrowski amended his complaint in July 2010; defendants then moved for summary judgment arguing a complete lack of proof on essential elements after discovery closed.
- Modrowski argued defendants failed to meet initial burden and that discovery was not completed; the district court granted summary judgment on CFAA and terminated remaining claims.
- On appeal, Modrowski challenged the district court’s interpretation of Rule 56 burden and the sufficiency of the defendants’ summary judgment motion, which the Seventh Circuit addressed below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendants meet initial Rule 56 burden by showing absence of evidence? | Modrowski | Modrowski failed to present evidence; defendants showed lack of evidence | Yes, defendants met initial burden. | |
| Was Modrowski required to produce evidence after defendants pointed to gaps? | Modrowski | Defendants showed gap; Modrowski could respond with admissible evidence | Yes, he was required to counter with evidence. | |
| Did district court abuse for not enforcing Local Rule 56.1 or require precise citations? | Modrowski | Rule 56.1 not strictly required; discretion to overlook transgressions | No abuse; court exercised discretion. | |
| Was defendants’ general reliance on Celotex permissible without enumerating statute elements? | Modrowski | Absence of evidence on essential element suffices under Celotex | Permissible approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (initial burden to show absence of evidence; not require negating evidence)
- Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment burden when nonmovant bears burden of persuasion)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmovant must show evidence to withstand summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 325 (1986) (show absence of evidence suffices for movant when appropriate)
- Praxair, Inc. v. Hinshaw & Culbertson, 235 F.3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2000) (discovery considerations and burdens in summary judgment)
- Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 387 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2004) (self-serving affidavits may be considered if based on personal knowledge)
- Koszola v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2004) (enforcing strict compliance with local rules; discretion to overlook)