43 F. Supp. 3d 1026
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Sunbelt filed suit against former employee Victor alleging misappropriation of trade secrets.
- Victor asserted five counterclaims: Wiretap Act, SCA, Cal. Penal Code § 502, Cal. Penal Code § 630, and privacy invasion.
- Victor’s iPhone and iPad were Sunbelt-owned; he linked personal Apple account to devices during/after employment.
- Victor returned devices after leaving; later, he synced Sunbelt devices to his personal Apple account, causing messages to appear on Sunbelt phone.
- Sunbelt allegedly reviewed post-employment communications; Victor claims this violated privacy and various federal/state statutes.
- Court granted Sunbelt’s motion to dismiss counterclaims with leave to amend, without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap Act claim viability | Victor failed to show intentional interception by Sunbelt. | Sunbelt intercepted texts during transmission or via devices. | Dismissed; leave to amend. |
| SCA liability viability | Sunbelt accessed Victor’s communications via networks storing data. | No facts showing unauthorized access through storage facilities. | Dismissed; leave to amend. |
| California Penal Code § 502 viability | Sunbelt unlawfully accessed Victor’s data without permission. | Allegations lack specificity and show no circumvention of protections. | Dismissed; leave to amend. |
| California Penal Code § 630 viability | Same basis as Wiretap/§ 502 invasions of privacy. | No plausible interception; lack of proof of CIPA violation. | Dismissed; leave to amend. |
| Invasion of privacy viability | Sunbelt intruded into Victor’s private data post-employment. | No reasonable expectation of privacy; conduct not highly offensive. | Dismissed; leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2009) (interception requires intentional acquisition; inadvertent not a violation)
- Shubert v. Metrophone, Inc., 898 F.2d 401 (3d Cir. 1990) (interception requires active acquisition during transmission)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (narrow definition of intercept; storage after transmission not interception)
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (SCA elements and electronic storage interpretation)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (circumventing barriers fantasy; analogical relevance to access without authorization)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (elements for intrusion upon seclusion and reasonable expectation of privacy)
- In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (privacy interest in electronic communications; content focus)
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 272 (Cal. 2009) (intrusion upon seclusion standard; reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Shulman v. Group W Prods., Inc., 18 Cal.4th 208 (Cal. 1998) (privacy tort elements and expectation of privacy standards)