492 F.Supp.3d 810
W.D. Ark.2020Background:
- Parties are divorced parents; between March–July 2019 defendant Jody Thornton accessed plaintiff Jessica Thornton’s Yahoo! email via a smartphone given to the parties’ minor child, read emails between plaintiff and her attorney, threatened to disclose their contents, and insulted plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued asserting five claims: (I) Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511); (II) Stored Communications Act (SCA, 18 U.S.C. § 2701); (III) Arkansas criminal-liability-based civil claim (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-107 relying on § 5-41-202); (IV) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); and (V) tort of outrage.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts; plaintiff opposed and requested additional discovery (deposition and a forensic exam of the device/email account) under Rule 56(d).
- Court held there was no genuine dispute that the Wiretap Act claim fails because plaintiff did not allege contemporaneous interception; Count I dismissed.
- Court granted summary judgment for outrage (Count V) as a matter of law; denied summary judgment without prejudice on SCA (Count II), state felony-based civil claim (Count III), and intrusion/invasion (Count IV) to allow further discovery; plaintiff granted 30 days to amend to plead actual damages for SCA.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) — whether reading stored emails qualifies as interception | Thornton: disputed timing; seeks forensic proof to show possible contemporaneous interception | Thornton (defendant): accessed stored emails after transmission; no contemporaneous interception | Held: Dismissed — Wiretap Act requires contemporaneous interception; no genuine dispute defendant intercepted messages in transit |
| SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2707) — need for actual damages to recover statutory minimum | Thornton: seeks statutory damages; alleges emotional/physical harms in discovery responses | Thornton (defendant): plaintiff must show actual damages to obtain the statutory minimum | Held: Plaintiff must plead actual damages to recover the $1,000 minimum; court granted leave to amend to plead actual damages |
| SCA — whether opened emails retained in inbox are protected "electronic storage" | Thornton: needs discovery/forensic exam to dispute defendant’s claim he only opened already-opened emails | Thornton (defendant): he never opened emails that were unread; no electronic-storage violation as a matter of law | Held: Denied summary judgment on this issue pending discovery (forensic exam and deposition) |
| Arkansas civil claim based on felony computer access (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-41-202 & 16-118-107) — whether conduct produced >$500 damages to support civil action | Thornton: can allege actual damages (including emotional distress) based on discovery responses | Thornton (defendant): no sufficient proof of damages to meet felony threshold | Held: Denied without prejudice; plaintiff may amend to plead actual damages; issue to be revisited after discovery |
| Invasion of privacy — intrusion upon seclusion (Ark.) — whether intrusion was highly offensive and expectation of privacy | Thornton: had legitimate expectation of privacy in password-protected email; reading attorney-client emails was highly offensive | Thornton (defendant): plaintiff suspected he knew her password; diminished expectation of privacy; not highly offensive as matter of law | Held: Denied — factual disputes (expectation of privacy and offensiveness) for jury determination |
| Tort of outrage — whether conduct was extreme and outrageous | Thornton: conduct caused severe emotional distress | Thornton (defendant): conduct not beyond all bounds of decency | Held: Granted — conduct, while offensive, did not meet Arkansas’s narrow outrage standard; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Epstein v. Epstein, 843 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.) (discussing Wiretap Act as covering contemporaneous interceptions)
- Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir.) (Wiretap Act contemporaneous-interception line)
- United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir.) (Wiretap Act contemporaneous-interception analysis)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.) (Wiretap Act scope discussion)
- Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.) (Wiretap Act precedent)
- Miller v. Meyers, 766 F. Supp. 2d 919 (W.D. Ark.) (similar facts; Wiretap Act and related claims addressed)
- Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (holding actual damages required to recover statutory minimum under SCA)
- Vista Marketing, LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir.) (agreeing that SCA requires proof of actual damages for statutory minimum)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. Supreme Court) (statutory-interpretation principle on "but in no case shall" language informing SCA analysis)
- Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822 (8th Cir.) (discussing SCA protection for stored vs. sent emails)
- Hately v. Watts, 917 F.3d 770 (4th Cir.) (addressing whether opened emails in recipient’s inbox are protected under SCA)
- Fletcher v. Price Chopper Foods of Trumann, Inc., 220 F.3d 871 (8th Cir.) (privacy torts; when information may not be highly offensive)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 74 S.W.3d 634 (Ark.) (elements of intrusion upon seclusion)
- Kiersey v. Jeffrey, 253 S.W.3d 438 (Ark.) (Arkansas standard for tort of outrage)
- Crockett v. Essex, 19 S.W.3d 585 (Ark.) (defining outrage elements)
- Croom v. Younts, 913 S.W.2d 283 (Ark.) (example of conduct meeting outrage standard)
- FMC Corp. v. Helton, 202 S.W.3d 490 (Ark.) (discussion whether emotional distress counts in "actual damages")
- Dodrill v. Ark. Democrat Co., 590 S.W.2d 840 (Ark.) (definition of invasion-of-privacy torts)