This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W married in 1970. In 2011 W filed for divorce accusing H of infidelity. The divorce case remains unresolved. H's lawyer sent Q's lawyer a document request asking for production of 'any and all communications, documents, e-mails, text messages, photographs, notes, credit card slips, bank statements, or other document whatsoever, which allegedly relate to W's allegation of infidelity.' Jay Frank, W's lawyer produced, in part, copies of email correspondence between H and several women. The messages seem to have been forwarded from H's email accounts to W's. H was shocked and determined that W must have secretly placed a 'rule' on his email accounts automatically forwarding his messages to W. H filed this federal suit against W and Frank pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which authorizes civil actions against persons who violate the Wiretap Act. Ds moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). They argued that intercepting an email doesn't violate the Wiretap Act unless the acquisition occurs contemporaneously with the email's transmission. Frank argued that he can't be liable under the Act for disclosing H's emails to him in response to his discovery request in the divorce proceeding. The judge agreed and dismissed the Wiretap Act claims against Ds. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.