Shefts v. Petrakis
2013 WL 3187971
C.D. Ill.2013Background
- Defendant Kevin Morgan moved for summary judgment on Count I (ECPA) and the Court granted the motion, clarifying Count III status under the SCA.
- Plaintiff alleged violations of ECPA, IEPA, and SCA by intercepting, monitoring, or accessing his Access2Go email, Yahoo! email, and Blackberry text messages.
- Claims focused on ‘secondary’ liability theories (Morgan allegedly directed others to intercept).
- Court held ECPA does not provide civil procurement/secondary liability; use of procurement, agency, conspiracy theories were not viable.
- Court held that claims for ECPA ‘use’ or ‘disclosure’ were forfeited and could not be amended at this stage.
- Count III (Yahoo! email under SCA) was deemed abandoned, with the Yahoo! SCA claim resolved in Defendants’ favor; remaining SCA claims about Access2Go and text messages were barred from trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECPA civil procurement liability exists? | Morgan directed others to procure interceptions. | ECPA does not include civil procurement liability. | Procurement liability not cognizable; Morgan entitled to summary judgment. |
| Can ECPA claims proceed on use or disclosure? | Plaintiff can pursue use/disclosure theories. | Only interception/procurement theories were raised; use/disclosure forfeited. | Use/disclosure claims forfeited; cannot proceed. |
| Status of Count III (SCA Yahoo! email)? | Yahoo! claim should proceed under SCA. | Yahoo! claim not viable; Count III resolved in Defendants’ favor. | Count III abandoned/resolved against Plaintiff. |
| IEA civil remedy for electronic communications? | IEA civil remedy covers electronic communications. | IEA civil remedy covers only oral conversations. | IEA civil remedy does not cover electronic communications. |
| Whether there is an implied private right of action under IEA for electronic communications? | There is an implied private remedy for electronic communications. | No implied private action; legislative history and structure show otherwise. | No implied private right of action for electronic communications under IEA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000) (amendment removed 'procures' clause; limits civil liability to actual interception)
- Kirch v. Embarq Management Co., 702 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2012) (textual analysis supports no civil procurement liability under §2520(a))
- Abbasi ex rel. Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos, 187 Ill.2d 386 (Ill. 1999) (limits implied causes of action; four-factor test for implication)
- Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 1999) (implied private right of action limited; fourth factor critical)