Stein v. Edward-Elmhurst Health

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Edward-Elmhurst Health’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of its motion to dismiss claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The court reaffirmed that the ECPA’s crime-tort exception requires a purpose to commit a criminal or tortious act, not a criminal or tortious purpose. Because the issue presented a controlling legal question involving substantial grounds for disagreement and could materially advance the litigation, the court certified it for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Defendant primarily repeated arguments previously rejected and did not establish a significant change in law or facts, a manifest error, newly discovered evidence, or another permissible ground for reconsideration.
2. The phrase "criminal or tortious" in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) modifies "act," not "purpose." The crime-tort exception therefore requires a purpose to commit an act that is criminal or tortious, but does not require a criminal or tortious purpose.
3. The court certified for interlocutory appeal the question whether the ECPA crime-tort exception applies when a complaint alleges that the defendant acted with a lawful purpose but does not allege that the defendant acted with a criminal or tortious purpose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration of the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss was warranted.
2. Whether the crime-tort exception to the ECPA's one-party consent rule requires a criminal or tortious purpose, or instead requires only a purpose to commit a criminal or tortious act.
3. Whether the statutory question should be certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Disposition

other