931 F. Supp. 2d 916
C.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiff McDade pursues remaining SCA damages for Yahoo! email; earlier rulings denied damages for Access2Go email and Blackberry messages.
- Feb. 20, 2013, court issued an order on damages calculation if liability found; Yahoo damages not addressed at that time.
- Plaintiff reasserts Yahoo! SCA claim; court considers whether not seeking actual damages bars statutory damages.
- Court agrees plaintiff may recover statutory damages without proving actual damages; relies on statutory construction, history, and district decisions.
- Statutory text 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) permits actual damages and profits or at least $1,000; does not require actual damages exclusively.
- Doe v. Chao distinguished; Van Alstyne relied on Privacy Act; court finds Doe not controlling for SCA damages; considers other authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does not seeking actual damages bar statutory damages? | McDade argues §2707(c) allows statutory damages without actual damages. | McDade contends Van Alstyne controls, requiring actual damages. | Not required; statutory damages available without actual damages. |
| Statutory construction of §2707(c) permits minimum damages? | McDade relies on text permitting actual damages, profits, or minimum $1,000. | Van Alstyne views require actual damages as prerequisite. | Text supports recovery even without proving actual damages. |
| Does legislative history support broader damages under §2707(c)? | House and Senate reports show damages include actual, profits, with minimum $1,000. | Legislative history is not decisive due to case-specific interpretations. | Legislative history supports broader damages under §2707(c). |
| Are other district decisions controlling on this point? | Cedar Hill and similar decisions support non-requirement of actual damages. | Van Alstyne rejected those analyses. | Court finds those decisions persuasive and distinguishable from Fourth Circuit precedent. |
| Is Doe v. Chao controlling precedent for SCA damages? | Doe suggests limitations but not definitive against SCA liquidated damages. | Doe binds interpretation of “substantively identical” statutes. | Doe not controlling; court relies on broader statutory reading and other authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2009) (held actual damages required as prerequisite to statutory damages under the SCA)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (Doe distinguished the Privacy Act when interpreting the SCA; did not mandate actual damages for SCA statutory damages)