766 F. Supp. 2d 919
W.D. Ark.2011Background
- Miller alleges federal computer-related violations (CFAA, SCA, FWA) and Arkansas civil claims (computer trespass, unlawful use/access, unlawful act, contract, IIED) arising from Meyers’ prior access to her password-protected online accounts via a keylogger.
- Meyers accessed Plaintiff’s passwords and monitored her online activity during and after the divorce proceedings.
- The parties signed a Property Settlement Agreement within their divorce, purporting to settle all claims, and share custody of two children.
- Miller contends the settlement does not bar all claims, especially federal ones not litigated in the divorce, and that she did not know of the conduct at issue when signing.
- The court granted Miller’s and Meyers’ various summary-judgment motions: counterclaim granted; SCA and computer trespass claims against Meyers viable; CFAA and FWA claims not viable; stay or denial of other state-law and contract claims for trial as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Property Settlement Agreement bar Miller’s claims? | Miller did not intend to waive non-divorce claims | Agreement broad-swept; bars all claims | Not barred; agreement covers divorce-related claims only |
| Is Meyers liable under the Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA)? | Meyers violated SCA by accessing stored emails | No SCA liability; arguments fail | Liability established; damages to be determined at trial |
| Is Meyers liable under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)? | Meyers’ keylogger and access constitute CFAA violation | Monitoring via home network and lack of contemporaneous interception negate liability | Summary judgment for Meyers on CFAA; liability denied |
| Is Meyers liable under the Federal Wiretap Act (FWA)? | Monitoring and interception during emails constitutes FWA breach | Monitoring does not constitute interception under FWA | Not liable under FWA; Meyers’ activity not within FWA liability scope |
| Are there viable state-law claims (computer trespass, unlawful access/use, act, breach of contract, IIED) and what is scope? | State claims valid; trespass actionable | Some state claims not create private civil liability; contract and IIED limited | Computer trespass viable with damages trial; unlawful use/access and unlawful act not civil; breach of contract and IIED dismissed; damages for trespass and SCA to be tried |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008) (SCA liability where unauthorized access established; damages to be determined)
- Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003) (elements of interception and privacy in communications)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (privacy and electronic communications standards)
- Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994) (interpretation of privacy and surveillance in cyber context)
- Hill v. Southside Public Schools, 688 F. Supp. 493 (E.D. Ark. 1988) (settlement agreements; contract construction; intent of parties)
- NLRB v. Superior Forwarding, Inc., 762 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1985) (contract interpretation in settlement contexts)
- Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311 (8th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment and factual dispositive issues in tort/contract matters)