Negro v. Superior Court
230 Cal. App. 4th 879
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Navalimpianti sued Negro in Florida for alleged breaches of duty and competition with Navalimpianti.
- Navalimpianti sought Google emails tied to Negro in California via a subpoena; Florida allowed discovery to California.
- California subpoena directed Google to produce emails; Google objected under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).
- Navalimpianti petitioned California court to quash the subpoena; the California court initially denied the petition and ordered production.
- Google moved to vacate or modify the order; Google advocated consent-by-email mechanism instead of coercive consent.
- After initial rulings, Negro complied with Florida court orders by emailing express consent to Google, which the California court later treated as lawful consent under the SCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court-ordered express consent constitutes lawful SCA consent | Navalimpianti argues consent was valid under SCA(b)(3) | Negro argues consent was coerced and not legally effective | Yes; court-ordered express consent is lawful under the SCA |
| Whether a civil subpoena can be enforced when consent exists | Navalimpianti contends subpoenas may be enforced with valid consent | Google contends the SCA does not require production; consent alone may be voluntary | Yes; consent permits enforcement of the subpoena to the extent of the consent |
| Whether there was any implied-in-fact or imputed consent meeting the SCA standard | Navalimpianti relies on implied/imputed consent | Negro asserts no implied consent evidenced | No implied-in-fact or imputed consent; prior consent analysis rejected; post-order express consent governs |
| What modifications to the order are appropriate given post-order developments | Navalimpianti seeks to streamline production to Florida magistrate and limit scope | Google highlights practical production limits and need for authoring safeguards | Order modified to reflect express consent dates, limit production to those messages, and route via Florida magistrate with proper filtering |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (Cal. App. 2006) (discovery and consent under SCA context; court may compel consent via sanctions)
- Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (implied consent standards in wiretap context; requires knowledgable assent)
- Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993) (consent concepts in wiretap context; implies need for actual consent)
- United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966 (1st Cir. 1995) (implication of consent in wiretap/privacy settings)