Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018

Suzlon seeks production of Sridhar's Hotmail emails for Australian civil proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
Emails are stored on a domestic Microsoft server; Sridhar is an Indian citizen imprisoned abroad.
District court previously granted Suzlon's production order; Microsoft and Sridhar moved to quash.
Key disputes: applicability of the ECPA to non-citizens, relevance of Federal Rules in § 1782, and implied consent.
District court held the ECPA applies to all persons, including non-citizens, and denied production; Suzlon appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the ECPA extend to non-citizens?	Suzlon argues the statute's plain text covers any person, including foreigners.	Microsoft and Sridhar contend the ECPA covers only U.S. citizens or those within its constitutional scope.	Yes, the ECPA applies to non-citizens.
Does Sridhar's asserted implied consent defeat the objection to production?	Suzlon claims Sridhar's Australian duties and actions imply consent to disclosure.	Sridhar argues no implied consent; he objected to disclosure and relied on service terms.	Implied consent argument fails.
Is legislative history controlling when the statutory text is clear?	Suzlon argues history shows privacy aims limit scope.	Defendants contend legislative history cannot override clear text.	Plain text controls; legislative history does not refute the language.

Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (starting point for discerning statutory intent; text not overridden by history)
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (applies ECPA to subpoenas against electronic service providers)
O'Rourke v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 684 F. Supp. 716 (D.D.C. 1988) (interprets 'any person' in FOIA as not limited to citizens)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (limits § 1782 discovery; informs scope of statutory interplay)