rebuttal the claims in this case stem from the installation and operation of illegal wiretapping equipment inside the corporate offices of been due to technology group incorporated a company owned explicitly by douglas so if in march two thousand chris andrews and whims that you invented and bring claims against the defendants as a result of their improper surveillance up and eat us off the plane alleged violations of federal and state wiretapping laws common law claim of invasion of privacy as well as several rendered by the domestic relations court and lucas county ohio stemming from the party's two thousand and fifteen divorce as a result d of its application of claim for clothes and the district court found the benita have no remaining claims and was therefore dismissed from the action the need appeals a decision on the ground that the district court erred in holding these claims were precluded because they were not and could not be fully and fairly litigated by the domestic relations court following bandidos dismissal after we moved to the court to limit further argument and or evidence the district court says that the issues that were raised in the divorce are now are in the federal court ok that which is now a claim that men do get has brought ok preclusion as i understand the rule is whether or not the claims could have been and that are in the current proceeding are based upon he claims arising out of the same transaction or currents that was the subject matter of and so i'm having difficulty here seen how the subject matter here is any different and what the subject matter was in the before sex and when the financial mismanagement issue was  was a rd party defendant in that action however the court the divorce court only has the appellate the power to distribute and determine the identity of property in a divorce case it does not have the right doesn't apply band if you didn't have the opportunity to bring it earlier yes or not even if it relates the same transaction or rights you have because it's a separate it's a separate action there are there are different courts of different jurisdiction the jurisdiction of the domestic relations court is that to deal with the issues between two married people and divide their on their property it does not have the ability to issue any rulings as a relates to a case between a business entity that was in fact on by mr cell under at the time that the that miss eleanor entered into her engaged in the behaviors in which she in the court treated doesn't really apply when you're talking about claim preclusion then write the law right i think yes you're ok so you must be talking about issue preclusion when you say there was no chance to raise it activities and the appellants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace pursuits of the house supreme court system beefy one who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude of another is subject to liability for invasion of his privacy that intrusion would be highly from outside threats and she did this to gain advantage and her then and of course st and because she didn't and former employee of the employees of her intent or action she should be liable under federal and state wiretapping laws as well as the state claim for invasion  privacy is invaded if you're not told that you're seen surveilling public area i think that goes to the reasonableness and the reasonable expectation of objective and subjective expectation of privacy employees by placing a recording device in a common office or by home or the conversations were highly personal in nature and critical of the director this court found that the employees had an object of expectation of privacy because their office was not accessible by anyone other than the boys and only employees were present for most conversations the court been further if it went further into the analysis by indicating that the employees had a subjective expectation of privacy because of the highly personal nature of  conversation of justice and doris the employees in this case were in an office that was inaccessible to members of the public only employees were present at the time of the conversation and there was no indication that they ever intended their conversation to become so the opponents have that extra that subject that objectives expectation of privacy they further have the subjective expectation of privacy in this case just as they did and doris because mrs salinger in the record establishe prior to installing the scammers she was barred from even having access to the vending opposites do or do to her verbal him using employees the appellant's were aware mrs hunter had no pass codes to enter the office and they were they were and the fact that they spoke freely in those recordings indicate that they also had a subjective expectation of frogs clark i know you've covered the preclusion issue extensively but i just want to go back again and financial misconduct of one spouse against the other was in fact the time to earl was the conduct that gave rise to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress this case here is involving  parties in the divorce thing and that's what keeps it from from precluding subsequent tort claims here that is one of our arguments absolutely that bend you know is only bound to in action to the extent that pretty exist  something let me ask and under the statute if you record something there's a reasonable expectation of privacy you record it and then while you're while you're driving those recordings on to listen to them there's a car crash in the recording s thank you very much your honor i think it's important to go back and look at the district court's claims regarding the issue of occlusion the district court did not in any way delineate what type of tort in the domestic relations court the domestic relations court is a quarterback where he is not a court of law and so therefore it is an able to litigate its claims they're the only proper way to litigate the and the only way in which we seeks to preclude is used then that we're actually they have to determine that the issues were actually litigated directly determine and essential to judgment in the prior action nothing involving wiretapping or invasion of privacy or any other and tensional essential to the court's decisions but to the domestic relations course decision in the silencers divorce the only thing that the court did get a divorce court did consider was whether or not there was financial misconduct on the part of it's it's precluded either by issue or by clik i would also like to point out that in the appleby's brief as a relates to the ownership interests of vendetta technology incorporated and page four of  brief and i want case they even can see the vendee to technology incorporate it was one hundred percent owned by douglas d silencers yes they were there were integrated activities but the company that is bringing the cause of action that is before the court case as opposed to the facts and doris versus after mr camp improperly states that the recording devices in in that case were only installed the bathroom in fact they were installed in a common office area that was shared by these four employees it's very similar to the case that we have here and so we believe that doris is on point and that there is both an objective and a subjective expectation of privacy based on the fact the object of being that the parties were not that the office was not open to the public and then the subject of factors regarding the the the personal nature of the communications i think in this court is properly scrutinizing missile injures arguments here about the in trying to draw a distinction between acquisition and interception and in fact the district court never even got to that level  we be exactly it was a tempest in a tea however we can send back the the interception happened when the when the recording was transferred to a remote server is absolutely immaterial whatsoever heard any intrusion upon the privacy and the private matters of one's employees mr selig as employees as as we have laid out for that reason we would ask that you overturn the court's decision