GEORGE THEOFEL; HOWARD TEIG; DAVID KELLEY; INTEGRATED CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., A Delaware Corporation; NANCY RILETT; RYAN TAM; CLAUDIA ENGLISH; TERESA PATTERSON; TANYA YOUNG; ROBERTO MARSELLA; REGINA OVENDEN; EMIL PESIRI; ERIC SULLIVAN; DOUGLAS H. WOLF; RICHARD BUCKINGHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALWYN FAREY-JONES; IRYNA A. KWASNY, Defendants-Appellees. GEORGE THEOFEL; HOWARD TEIG; DAVID KELLEY; INTEGRATED CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., A Delaware Corporation; NANCY RILETT; RYAN TAM; CLAUDIA ENGLISH; TERESA PATTERSON; TANYA YOUNG; ROBERTO MARSELLA; REGINA OVENDEN; EMIL PESIRI; ERIC SULLIVAN; DOUGLAS H. WOLF; RICHARD BUCKINGHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALWYN FAREY-JONES; IRYNA A. KWASNY, Defendants-Appellees., 341 F.3d 978

Summary

The corporate officers and the individual were involved in commercial litigation in New York. In the course of discovery, the individual's attorney served a subpoena on the corporation's Internet service provider (ISP) to gain access to its email. After numerous email messages were provided to defendants, a magistrate judge found that the subpoena was patently unlawful, granted a motion to quash the subpoena, and imposed sanctions on defendants. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in the instant civil suit after holding that none of the federal statutes applied. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Wiretap Act claim because the term "intercept" in 18 U.S.C.S. § 2511(1)(a) applied only to acquisition contemporaneous with transmission. The court reversed the judgment in all other respects. Because defendants procured ISP consent by exploiting a mistake of which they had constructive knowledge, the court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Stored ...