This post examines an opinion issued in a California divorce
case. As the judge explains,
Robert Yee and Verna Lin are parties to
a divorce action filed in Alameda County Superior Court. That action settled
but awaits a final judgment, and dissolution of marriage was granted.
[Yee] alleges that during the divorce
proceedings [Lin] intentionally and without consent hacked into his email
accounts. Specifically, she hacked the email provider facilities of Yahoo and
Google, and accessed personal, business and attorney/client information contained
therein. [Yee] alleges that his email was hacked at least thirteen times before
he discovered [Lin’s] conduct and changed his password.
Yee v. Lin, 2012
WL 4343778 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
2012).
This case is in federal court, but it is not the divorce
case (which was filed in a California state court, as noted above). In the U.S., divorce is a matter within the
exclusive jurisdiction of state courts; as Wikipedia notes, federal courts do
not handle divorces.
Getting back to Mr. Yee and Ms. Lin, he filed a civil suit
in federal district court in which he alleged four causes of action: One was for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2701
(the Stored Communications Act); the second was for violating California Penal Code § 502(c)(2); the third was for the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion.” Yee v. Lin, supra. And the
fourth was for “intentional interference with prospective economic
relations”. Yee v. Lin, supra.
As to facts, Lee alleged that
the email hacking resulted in loss of
profits from two business ventures in China. Yee states that he was fired from
a Tianjin development project after disclosing that [Lin] had hacked into his
email accounts. He further states that he experienced a hostile business
environment involving a Shanghai joint venture as a result of [Lin’s]
disclosing confidential information contained in his email accounts. [Yee]
alleges he lost profits from these failed business ventures.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
(If you were wondering, the federal district court has
jurisdiction over the two causes of action arising under California law under
its supplemental jurisdiction: When
someone files a claim that arises under federal law, the federal court can hear
and decide state law claims that arise under the same facts involved in the
federal claim.)
Lin responded to Yee’s suit by filing a motion to dismiss
his causes of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As Wikipedia explains, a Rule
12(b)(6) motion alleges that the plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a
given cause of action, such as intrusion upon seclusion, in his/her/its Complaint. The motion does not raise any factual issues;
factual issues are to be decided by the jury or by the judge at a bench trial. To withstand such a challenge,
the plaintiff must allege facts which, if proven at trial, would justify a
verdict in his favor.
The federal district court judge who has the case began his
analysis of Lin’s motion by examining Yee’s Stored Communication Act (SCA)
claim, noting that the SCA
provides a private right of action
against anyone who (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility
through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2)
intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and (3) thereby
obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic
communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
The cause of action is created by 18 U.S. Code § 2707(a)
says any “person aggrieved by” a violation of the SCA “in which the conduct
constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of
mind may, in a civil action, recover from the . . . such relief as may be
appropriate.” Yee v. Lin, supra. Section
2707(b)(2) says the court can award “damages under [§ 2707(c)]”, and 18 U.S.
Code § 2707(c) says it can assess
as damages . . . the sum of the actual
damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a
result of the violation. . . If the violation is willful or intentional, the
court may assess punitive damages.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
The judge first addressed Lin’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to
Yee’s SCA claim. In his complaint, Yee
alleged that Lin
intentionally, knowingly and with the
conscious objective of doing harm to Yee accessed the website of an
electric communications service, specifically the email provider facilities of
Yahoo and Google, and by using the password she obtained without Yee's
permission or authority, accessed [his] private email accounts which were in
electronic storage on the servers of the electronic communication services . .
. , [and] accessed, obtained, copied, saved and/or used the emails.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
The judge also noted that Yee’s complaint provides
specific times, dates and emails that
were allegedly hacked. For example, [he] alleges that on March 25, 2012, he
wrote an email at 2:21 PM to his attorney discussing litigation issues related
to the divorce. He further alleges that Lin intentionally logged on to his email
at 9:01 PM and read confidential attorney/client emails. She then copied and
saved these emails and divulged the content to third-persons such as Lin's
attorney and Yee's business associate. . . .
The divorce proceedings provide enough
factual context to support [Yee’s] allegations that [Lin’s] action were without
permission and intentional. It is also plausible that if [Lin] divulged the
contents of the emails then she obtained them by either saving or copying them.
Furthermore, [Lin] contends no actual
harm was alleged. Not so. [Yee] sufficiently alleges actual damages of lost
profits and impaired business relationships as a result of the email hacking. [His]
claim under the Act is sufficiently pled.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
The judge then addressed Yee’s claim under California Penal
Code § 502(c)(2), which makes it a state crime to knowingly access and, acting
without permission, take, copy or make use of data from a computer, computer
system or computer network. Yee v. Lin, supra. California Penal Code § 502(e)(1) lets the
victim of such a violation bring a civil suit for damages against the
perpetrator.
In her 12(b)(6) motion, Lin argued Yee did not have “standing
to bring a claim under § 502(c)(2) because he is not `the owner of
the . . . data’ and has not suffered a loss by reason of a violation.” Yee v. Lin, supra. Yee responded by pointing out that he owned
the data in his email accounts. Yee v.
Lin, supra. Yee’s complaint also
alleged that the
email hacking caused him to incur `monetary
expenses associated with responding to Lin's unauthorized access including, but
not limited to expenses related to identifying, inspecting, analyzing and rectifying
Lin's improper actions.’ For example, [Yee] alleges that at a business meeting
on March 30, 2012 in China, he disclosed to his client that `sensitive business
information about their project could have been compromised.’
Accordingly, standing to sue
under § 502(e) is met. The rest of [Lin’s] arguments repeat those
made under the [SCA]. For the same reasons discussed above, [Yee] has pled
sufficient facts to state a claim under § 502.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
That brings us to Yee’s third claim: intrusion upon seclusion. The judge began his analysis of this claim,
and Lin’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to it, by noting that
`[o]ne who intentionally intrudes,
physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his
private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion
of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.’ Whether conduct is offensive depends on `the degree of the intrusion,
the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion as well as the
intruder's motives and objectives, the setting into which [s]he intrudes, and
the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded.’ Deteresa v. American
Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 121 F.3d 460 (United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 1997).
Yee v. Lin, supra.
Yee claimed Lin intentionally intruded on his right to
privacy and solitude by:
`intentionally accessing and/or wrongfully
disclosing the contents of his personal, business and privileged email
communications between [Lin] and third parties . . . [which] was offensive and
objectionable to [Yee] and would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable
person of ordinary sensibilities in that it exposed [Yee’s] private, privileged
and confidential affairs to [Lin] and other unauthorized persons, gained unfair
advantage for [Lin] in the [d]ivorce [c]ase and/or otherwise for the purpose of
her own and others financial gain.’
Yee v. Lin, supra (quoting
Yee’s complaint).
The judge then found that Yee had pled
sufficient facts to establish that [Lin] intentionally accessed his email without consent which resulted in damages. [Yee] also pled that his emails contained personal, confidential and private communications. This is sufficient to plead the invasion of privacy requirement. Moreover, the context of the intrusion, allegedly occurring during a contested divorce and the thirteen alleged unauthorized entries into his email is sufficient to plead the highly offensive to a reasonable person requirement.
Accordingly, [Yee] has pled sufficient
facts to state a claim for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
And that brings us to Yee’s fourth and final claim: intentional interference with prospective
economic relations. Yee v. Lin, supra. As the
opinion explains, the elements of this claim are
`(1) the existence of a specific
economic relationship between [plaintiff] and third parties that may
economically benefit [plaintiff]; (2) knowledge by [defendant] of this
relationship; (3) intentional acts by [defendant] designed to disrupt the
relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) damages to the
[plaintiff].’
Yee v. Lin, supra
(quoting Rickards v. Canine Eye
Registration Foundation, Inc., 704 F.2d 1449 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit 1983)).
In his complaint, Yee alleged that Lin “intentionally
interfered with two business ventures that failed.” Yee v.
Lin, supra. The judge found Yee’s
allegations in support of this claim were insufficient to withstand Lin’s Rule
12(b)(6) challenge to dismiss it for failing to state a viable legal
claim. Yee v. Lin, supra.
With regard to the first business deal,
[Yee] alleges that he was fired from a Tianjin development project for
disclosing to his business associate that his emails were hacked by [Lin]. This
is insufficient to show that [her] actions were designed (or reasonably likely)
to disrupt [his] business interest. It was [Yee] who disclosed the
infiltration, not [Lin]. Nothing pled plausibly shows such disclosure was
likely to happen.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
As to the second business deal, the judge noted that Yee’s
complaint alleged that
`the business relationship between [Yee] and his
[business] associate [Lin Hua Cheng] in China was in fact disrupted by [Lin’s]intentional
interference by creating a hostile and uncooperative business environment . . .
[resulting in] denied specific payments, refused attendance at important
business meetings and experienced disruption of the distribution of funds to
which he was entitled.’
Yee v. Lin, supra.
The judge found this was not
specific enough to support the
allegation that [Lin’s] actions were designed to disrupt [Yee’s] business
interests, even if actual disruption occurred. [Yee]f also does not provide
specific facts to support the allegation that [Lin] knew of the business
relationship. Notably, [he] does not specify the content of the emails
disclosed to the business associates. Without these important facts, the
allegations are merely conclusory.
Yee v. Lin, supra.
He therefore denied Lin’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion with regard
to the first three claims and granted it with regard to the fourth one. Yee v.
Lin, supra. That does not mean the
claim is dead; Yee can file an amended complaint and try to remedy the
deficiencies in how he pleads this claim.
Nor does it means that Yee wins on the first three claims; it only means
they survive and the case moves forward on them, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment