United States v. Wenk, 319 F. Supp. 3d 828

Defendant Timothy Scott Wenk obtained a court order and subpoena compelling Google to produce content from several email accounts alleged to belong to him.
Google, a non-party, moved to vacate the order and quash the subpoena, arguing compliance would violate the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.
The SCA generally prohibits providers from divulging electronic communications stored under their control, with limited exceptions (including disclosure with lawful consent of an originator or addressee and certain processes available to governmental entities).
The SCA permits, but does not require, a service provider to disclose content when a user gives lawful consent; courts are not identified as "governmental entities" under the Act.
The court accepted Google’s contention that, on these facts, Google lacks reliable means to verify proper user consent.
The court concluded that a criminal defendant cannot combine user consent and a court-ordered subpoena to compel an SCA-covered provider to disclose communications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant can use a court subpoena plus alleged user consent to compel an SCA-covered provider to disclose stored communications	Wenk argued the subpoena, coupled with purported account-holder consent, lawfully compels Google to produce the emails	Google argued the SCA prohibits compelled disclosure absent the specific government-authorized procedures and that consent does not transform a subpoena into a compulsory mechanism	The court held the SCA vests providers with discretionary authority to disclose upon consent; criminal defendants cannot use consent plus a court subpoena to compel disclosure under the SCA

United States v. Amawi, 552 F. Supp. 2d 679 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (distinguishing courts from "governmental entities" under the SCA)
United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832 (2d Cir. 2015) (noting similar one-sided access frameworks in other federal evidentiary provisions)