### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10769 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 6 1 3 8 5 - CV - PCH J O H N W I L L I A M S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R O B E R T B . C A RN E Y , M I C H A E L W E I S S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 19, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Section 934.10, Florida Statutes provides a c ivil remedy for the unla

wful interc eption, 1 dis c losure , o r u seof

wire , o ral, or e le c tronicc omm unic atio ns . 2 J o h n W illia m s ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is c o m p la in t, in w h i ch h e al l eg ed v i o l at i o n s o f: (1 ) th e F o u rth an dF o u rt een th A m en d m en t s, pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . §§ 1983 a nd 1985; ( 2) s e c t i on 934. 10, F l or i daS t a tut e s ; a nd 1 (3) s t at e l aw go verni ng “ i nt ent i on al t ort s, ” “ abuse of proces s, ” and “ i nt ent i on al in f lic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s .” W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I . B AC KG R OU ND In h i s pro se c o m p l a i n t , Wi l l i a m s a l l e g e dWe i s s a n dAn d e r s o n , two a tt orne y s f

orB i l l i ng, C oc hr a n, H e a th, L y l e s , M aur o & A nde r s on, P . A . ( B i l l i ng, C o ch ran ), i l l eg al l y reco rd ed st at em en t s h e m ad e atan ab o rt ed d ep o si t i o n . H e al so a l l e ge d J udge C a rne yc ons i de r e d the s e r e c or de d s t a t e m e nt s be f or e c om pe l l i ng the t ak i n g o f h i s d ep o si t i o n , i m p o si n g san ct i o n s o n h i m , an drev o k i n g h i s p ro hac vi ce s t a tus i n ac a s e br oughtbyac orpor a t i on a f f i l i a t e d w i th W i l l i a m s a ga i ns tthe c i tyof F ortL auderdal e, w hi ch w as re pres ent ed by B i l l i ng , C ochran. W i l l i am s a tt ac hed as e x h ib its to h is c o m p la in t tr a n s c r ip ts o f th e ab o rte dd e p o s itio n a n dth e h e a r in g in w h ic h J u d g e C a rn e ya lle g e d lyu s e dth e s e s ta te m e n ts to s a n c tio n h im . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d h is c o m p la in t p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f c o u ldb e g r a n te d . W i l l i am s a ss ert s the di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng : (1) Jud ge C arney w as ent i t l edBe causeWil liams’ exhibi ts wereattache d to his complaint, the district court did not err 2 in consideringthem without convertingthe motion to dis miss int o a summary judgment reque st. See Brooks v. BlueCross &Blue Shield of Fla., Inc. , 116 F.3d 1364, 1368 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 3 t o abs ol ut e j udi c i a l i m m uni ty ; ( 2) W i l l i a m s ha d no r e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on of pri vacyi n h i s s t at em ent s a ti ss ue; (3) W ei ss , A nd er son, and B i l l i ng , C ochran, w er e not“ s t a t e a c t or s ” f

orpurpos e s of

§ 1983; a nd ( 4) W e i s s , A nde r s on, a nd B i l l i ng, C o c h r a n w e r e e n title d to a s s e rt F lo r id a ’s litig a tio n p r iv ile g e a s ad e f e n s e to s u it. I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e g r a n t o f am o tio n to d is m is s , ta k in g a s tru e th e f a c ts a s a lle g e din th e c o m p la in t. D oe v . P r y or , 3 4 4 F .3 d1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . 2 M ot i ons t o di s m i s s a r e onl ygr a nt e d “ w he n the m ova ntde m ons tr a t e s ‘ be y ond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff

can p rove no se tof fa ct s i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m w hi ch w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef . ’ ” Spai n v . B r ow n & W i l l i am s on T

obac c o C or

p. , 363 F .3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “P ro se p le a d in g s a r e h e ldto al e s s s tr i nge nts t a nda r d tha n pl e a di ngs dr a f t e d bya tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be l i bera l l y c on strued. ” T

an nenb au m v. U

ni ted States , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). A . J u d ic ia l im m u n ity U n d e rth e d o c tr in e o f

ju d ic ia l im m u n ity , aju d g e is e n title dto ab s o lu te j ud i ci al i m m un i ty f

rom dam ages for tho se ac t s t aken: (1) w hi l e a ct i ng i n a j ud i ci al4

c ap a c ity ; u n le s s ( 2 ) a c tin g in th e c le a rab s e n c e o f a ll ju r is d ic tio n . B o l i n v. S to ry , 2 2 5 F .3 d1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 9 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W h eth eran ac t i s d o n e w ith in a ju d g e’s ju d ic ia l c ap a c ityis d e te rm in e d b y“th e n a tu r e o f th e a c t its e lf

, i . e. , w h eth er i ti s a f u n c tio n n o rm a llyp e r f

o rm e d b yaju d g e , a n dto th e e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e p a rtie s , i . e. , w hether they dea l tw i th the j ud ge i n h i s j ud i ci al capaci ty. ” Mi re les v. W aco , 1 1 2 S. C t . 286, 288 ( 1991) . A s t o the s e c ond r e qui r e m e nt , aj udge doe s nota c ti n the “c le a rab s e n c e o f

a ll ju r is d ic tio n ” w h e n h e a c ts e rr o n e o u s ly , m a lic io u s ly , o rin e x c e s s o f h is au th o r ity , b u t r a th e rw h e n h e a c ts w ith o u t subj ec t m at terju r is d ic tio n . D y ke s v . H os e m ann , 7 7 6 F .2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7

– 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . “In ju n ctiv e r elief s h all n o t b e g ra n ted ” in an ac ti o n b ro u g h t ag ain st “a ju d ic ia l o f

f ic e rf o ra n a c t o ro m is s io n ta k e n in s u c h o f f ic e r 's ju d ic ia l c ap a c ity. . . un l es s adecl ar at ory dec re e w as vi ol at ed or decl ar at ory r el i ef w as un avai l abl e. ” B o lin , 22 5 F . 3d at12 42 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). D ec l ar at ory r el i ef i s avai l abl e i f a pl a i nt i f f e s t abl i s he s avi ol a t i on, as e r i ous r i s k of c ont i nui ng i rr e pa r abl e i nj uryi f the r e lie f is n o t g r a n te d , a n d th e ab s e n c e o f a n a d e q u a te r e m e d ya t la w . Id . Ju d g e C arn ey’ s st at e co u rto rd ers co m p el l i n g th e t ak i n g o f W i l l i am s’ d ep o si t i o n , i m p o si n g san ct i o n s o n W i l l i am s, an drev o k i n g h i s p ro hac vi ce st atu s, a s w e ll a s a n y“u s e ” o f

W illia m s ’ “in te r c e p te d ” s ta te m e n ts , w e r e ju d ic ia l a c ts because they w er e norm al j ud i ci al funct i on s i n a ca se pend i ng before hi m , occurre d5

in h is c o u rtr o o m , a n d a r o s e f r o m d e a lin g s w ith h im in h is o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity . M oreover, even as sum i ng the truth o f W i l l i am s’ al l egat i on s, thatJudg e C arney i m pr ope r l yc ons i de r e d the i nt e r c e pt e d s t a t e m e nt s be f or e e nt e r i ng hi s or de r s , J udge C arney di d n otac ti n the “ cl ear absence of al l j uri sdi ct i on , ” a s he s t i l l had subj ec t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e p r o c e e d in g s , r e g a r d le s s o f ap a rtic u la ra c t. See D

ykes , 7 7 6 F . 2 dat9 4 7

– 4 8 . A s su ch , th e d i stri ctco u rtd i dn o terr i n d i sm i ssi n g W i l l i am s’ cl ai m s f or m on et ary dam ages agai nstJudg e C arney und erthe do ctri ne of j ud i ci al i m m u n i ty. M oreover, W i l l i am s s ou gh ttw o form s of i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . F i rs t , he as ked f ora n i nj unc t i on “ f

r om f urthe rdi s c l os ur e a nd us e of the a f or e s a i d c om m uni c a t i on and the other m at er i al i nt egra t ed and p ac kaged i n the m ot i on i m prop er l y pre se nt ed t o, and u se d b y the defendantJudg e C arney t o p enal i ze pl ai nt i ff . ” H ow ever , W i l l i a m s f

a i l e d t o a l l e ge w ha t“ s e r i ous r i s k of c ont i nui ng i rr e pa r abl e i nj ury ” he f a c e dab s e n t s u c h r e lie f

. I n d e e d , h e a d m itte din h is c o m p la in t h e v o lu n ta r ily di sm i ss ed the pri or st at e s ui t . W i tho utsuch an al l egat i on , decl ar at ory r el i ef w as u n a v a ilab le to h im , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t e rrin d is m is s in g th is c la im . See B o lin , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 2 . W i l l i a m s a l s o a s ke d f

ora“ m a nda t oryi nj unc t i on” di r e c t i ng the r e m ova l a nd d e s tru c tio n o f

an yc o u rt f

ile s c o n ta in in g h is s ta te m e n ts . T h is c la im a ls o f a ils6

because there w as an adequat e r em edy a tl aw , nam el y, an extra ordi naryw ri t , such as a w ri to f m an d am u s, t o co m p el th e p ro p er p art i es t o rem o v e an dd estro y th ese p ap e r s . See B o lin , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 2 . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t e rrin d is m is s in g W illia m s ’ c la im s f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a g a in s t J u d g e C a rn e y . B . Sect i on 93 4. 10 , Flori da Statutes S ect i o n 9 3 4 . 1 0 , F l o ri d a S t atu t es p ro v i d es a ci v i l rem ed y fo r p erso n s w h o se w ir e , o r a l, o re le c tr o n ic c o m m u n ic a tio n s a r e in te r c e p te d , d is c lo s e d , o ru s e din v io la tio n o f

s e c tio n s 9 3 4 .0 3

– .0 9 , F lo r id aS ta tu te s . “O r a l c o m m u n ic a tio n ” is de f i ne d a s “ a nyor a l c om m uni c a t i on utt e r e d byape r s on e xhi bi t i ng a n e xpe c t a t i on thatsuch com m un i ca t i on i s notsubj ec tt o i nt er ce pt i on un der c i rc um st ance s ju s tif y in g s u c h e x p e c ta tio n . . . .” § 9 3 4 .0 2 ( 2 ) , F la . S ta t. “F r o m th is la n g u a g e , it is c l e a rtha tthe l e gi s l a tur e di d noti nt e nd tha te ve ryor a l c om m uni c a t i on be f r e e f r om i nt er ce pt i on w i tho utthe pri or consentof al l the part i es t o the com m un i ca t i on . ” State v . I nc i arrano , 4 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 5 ( F la . 1 9 8 5 ) . R a th e r , “[ a ] r e a s o n ab le ex p ec tati o n o f p riv ac y u n d era g iv en se t o f c ircu m stan ce s d ep en d s u p o n o n e’s ac tual subj ec t i ve expect at i on of pri vacya s w e ll a s w h e th e rs o c ie tyis p r e p a r e d to re cogn i ze thi s e xp ec t at i on as re as on abl e. ” I d. (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). In d e te rm in in g r e a s o n ab le n e s s u n d e rth is p r o v is io n , F lo r id a ’s c o u rts lo o kto F o u rth A m e n d m e n t ju r is p ru d e n c e . B r a n d in v . S ta te , 6 6 9 S o . 2 d2 8 0 , 2 8 2 n . 2 (F l a. 1 st7

D C A 1 9 9 6 ). F act o rs u sed i n cl u d e th e l o cat i o n w h ere th e co m m u n i cat i o n o ccu rs, the m anner i n w hi ch the com m un i ca t i on i s m ade, and the ki nd of com m un i ca t i on at is s u e . S te v e n s o n v . S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d4 1 0 , 4 1 2 ( F la . 1 s t D C A 1 9 9 6 ) . E xh i bi t s t o the com pl ai ntshow ed W i l l i am s, w ho appears t o b e al i ce nsed att orney i n N ew Y ork, m ade hi s s t at em ent s a tan abort ed depo si t i on af t erhe had in tr o d u c e dh im s e lf

a n d o b je c te d to th e p r o c e e d in g s a n dth e r e c o r d in g o f h is s ta te m e n ts . Y e t, a f

te rh e m a d e th e s e o b

je c tio n s , W illia m s d ir e c te dth e s ta te m e n ts ati ss ue t o tho se pres ent . T hese st at em ent s, as w el l as the m anner i n w hi ch they w e r e m a de , c onc e rne d apubl i c pr oc e e di ng a nd e ve n i f nott o be r e c or de d, w e r e not q u a lif ie d , in a d v a n c e , a s c o n f id e n tia l, p r iv ile g e d , o rp r iv a te . T h u s , th e s ta te m e n ts w er e notcom m un i ca t i on s thatsoci ety i s pre pare d t o rec og ni ze as fa l l i ng un der an o b je c tiv e e x p e c ta tio n o f

p r iv a c y . See I

nc i arr ano , 47 3 S o. 2d at12 75 (f i nd i ng an i ndi vi dua l ha s no r e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c yi n s t a t e m e nt s m a de w i th i nt e nt to d o h a rm to a n o th e r ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t e rrin d is m is s in g h is s e c tio n 9 3 4 .1 0 c la im s , a s h is s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t “o r a l c o m m u n ic a tio n s ” w ith in the m e a ni ng of

tha tpr ovi s i on. C . Se c t i on 1983 I n or de rt o pr e va i l i n a§ 1983 a c t i on, “ apl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha the ors he w as depri ved o f afe dera l ri gh tby a per son act i ng un der c ol or of st at e l aw . ” G r iffin8

v. C i t y of O pa -L ocka , 26 1 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). “ O nl y i n rar e c i r c um s t a nc e s c a n apr i va t e pa rtybe vi e w e d a s a‘ s t a t e a c t or ’ f ors e c t i on 1983 pu rposes . ” H

arve y v . H arve y , 94 9 F . 2d 11 27 , 11 30 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). In order for a pr i va t e pa rtyt o be c ons i de r e d a“ s t a t e a c t or , ” w e ha ve he l d one of thr e e c ondi t i ons m us tbe m e t : ( 1) the s t a t e ha s c oe r c e d ora tl e a s ts i gni f i c a nt l ye nc our a ge d the a c tio n a lle g e d to v io la te th e C o n s titu tio n ; ( 2 ) th e p r iv a te p a rtyp e r f o rm e dap u b lic f u n c tio n th a t w a s tr a d itio n a llyth e e x c lu s iv e p r e r o g a tiv e o f th e s ta te ; o r( 3 ) th e s ta te h a ds o f a rin s in u a te d its e lf

in to ap o s itio n o f

in te r d e p e n d e n c e w ith th e p r iv a te p a rty th a t it w a s ajo in t p a rtic ip a n t in th e e n te rp r is e . R ay burn ex r e l. R ay burn v . H ogue , 24 1 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 47 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A s s um i ng ar

gue ndo th a t ap r iv a te a tto rn e y , r e p r e s e n tin g ac ityin ac iv il act i o n , i s a “ st at e act o r” fo r § 1 9 8 3 p u rp o ses, an dfu rth er assu m i n g th ese att o rn eys w e r e “ s t a t e a c t or s , ” W i l l i a m s f a i l e d t o a l l e ge s uf

f i c i e ntf a c t s t o s how avi ol a t i on of af e d e r a l r ig h t. See Calhoun v . L i l le nas P ubl is hi ng , 2 9 8 F .3 d1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 0 n .2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng w e “ m a ya f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourton di f f e r e ntgr ounds a s l ong a s ‘ the j udgm e nte nt e r e d i s c orr e c ton a nyl e ga l gr ound r e ga r dl e s s of the gr ounds addres se d, adop t ed or re j ec t ed by the di stri ctcourt ’ ”) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n di s m i s s i ng W i l l i a m s ’ § 1983 c l a i m s a ga i ns tW e i s s , A nde r s on, a nd B i l l i ng, C o c h r a n .9

W h ile th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s e x p r e s s lyh e ldth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts a ga i ns tthe “ r e c or di ng of or a l s t a t e m e nt s , ” i tha s a l s o he l d “ [ w ] ha tape r s on kn ow i ng l y e xp oses t o the pu bl i c, even i n h i s ow n h om e or off i ce , i s nota s ubj ec t of F ou rth A m endm entprot ec t i on . ” Kat z v . U ni ted States , 88 S . C t . 507, 511–12 ( 1967) . T a ki ng W i l l i a m s ’ a l l e ga t i ons a s true , hi s r e m a rks w e r e m a de publ i c l y , f or a l l thos e w i thi n e a r s hott o he a r . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , he c a nnots how the F o u rth A m en d m en tp recl u d es th e reco rd i n g o f su ch st at em en t s. M or e ove r , W i l l i a m s a l s o f a i l e d t o a l l e ge s uf

f i c i e ntf a c t s t o e s t abl i s h a p r o c e d u r a l o rs u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n u n d e rth e F if th A m e n d m e n t.

“ P r oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s r e qui r e s not i c e a nd a n opportuni tyt o be he a r d be f or e a ny go vernm ent al depri vat i on of a property i nt er es t . ” Zi p p erer v. C i t

y o f Fo rt M yers , 4 1 F . 3 d6 1 9 , 6 2 3 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). T h e su b st an t i v e d u e p ro cess cl ause “ prot ec t s onl y tho se ri gh t s thatar e ‘ fund am ent al , ’ thati s, ri gh t s thatar e

‘ i m pl i ci ti n the conceptof ordered l i berty. ’ ” McKin n e yv . P a te , 20 F . 3d 1550, 1 5 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W illia m s d idn o t a lle g e a n yf a c ts h e w a s d e n ie dn o tic e o ra n o p p o rtu n ityto b e h eard . R ath er, h e al l eg es th ata co u rtrep o rt er— n o tn am ed as a defe nd ant

— re corded hi s s t at em ent s m ade t o o pp osi ng coun se l atan abort ed depo si t i on , and the l aw fi rm and att orneys used thatst at em entt o see k t o com pel10

h i s d ep o si t i o n an d o b t ai n an o rd er rev o k i n g h i s pr o hac vi ce s t a tus . S uc h a c t i ons d o n o ti n v o k e a“ f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g h ti m p l i c i ti n th e c o n c e p to f o r d e r e dl i b e rty . ” As such, W i l l i am s has fa i l ed t o al l ege f ac t s s uffi ci entt o est abl i sh the depri vat i on of a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t. D . L i t i gat i on pr i v i lege U nd erF l ori da l aw , “ absol ut e i m m un i ty m ustbe af forded t o any ac t o c c u rr i n g d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f aj u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g . . . s o l o n g a s th e a c th a s s o me re l at i on t o the proceedi ng . ” G r e e n L e af N urs e r yv . E . I . D uP ont D e N e m ours and C o. , 341 F . 3d 1292, 1302 n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T hi s l i t i ga t i on pr i vi l e ge “ e xt e nds no ton l y t o the part i es i n a proceedi ng bu tt o . . . coun se l as w el l . ” L e v i n, Mi dd leb ro o ks, M

a b i e, T h o m a s, M

a yes & Mi tch el l

, P . A . v. U

n i ted S ta tes Fi re In s. C o. , 63 9 S o. 2d 60 6, 60 8 (F l a. 19 94 ). A s s uch, thi s pri vi l ege bars t ortcl ai m s bas ed o n c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f litig a tio n . See J

a c k s o n v . B e llSo u th T eleco m m s. , 372 F . 3d 1250, 1275–76 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng F l or i da ’ s l i t i ga t i on pri vi l ege barr ed sui tagai nstatt orneys ). F urther, w e have hel d “ F l ori da l aw s ugge s t s tha tthe F l or i dac ourt s w oul d a gr e e tha t‘ e ve nt s t a ki ng pl a c e out s i de the c ourtr oom dur i ng di s c ove ry. . . [ a r e ] de s e rvi ng of the pr ot e c t i on of

the [ l i t i ga t i on] pri vi l ege . . . . ’ ” I

d. a t1276.Although thedistrict court re lied on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 44 S. Ct . 149 (1923), 3 and D.C. Court of

Appeals v. Fe ldman , 103 S. Ct . 1303 (1983) (the Rooker-Feldmando c trine ) to dis mis s Wil liams’ fe deral la w c laimsag ains t Judg eCarney, w edono t add re ss t hisissuebe c a

us e it is unnecessar

y to the resolution of this case . 11 W i l l i am s bas ed hi s s t at e t ortl aw cl ai m s on an att orney’ s c on du ctatan abort ed depo si t i on and ata s ub se qu enthear i ng on a m ot i on t o com pel . S uch c o n d u c t b ya n a tto rn e ya t aju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g is p r o te c te db yab s o lu te im m u n ity unde rF l or i da ’ s l i t i ga t i on pr i vi l e ge . M or e ove r , a s di s c us s e d above , none of the A p p el l ees en g ag ed i n cri m i n al act i o n s u n d er F l o ri d a l aw , an dth u s W i l l i am s’ arg u m en tth atth e p ri v i l eg e w as w ai v ed n ecessaril y fai l s. 3 I I I . C ON C L US I ON T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t e rrin : ( 1 ) f in d in g J u d g e C a rn e yw a s e n title dto abs ol ut e j udi c i a l i m m uni ty ; ( 2) f i ndi ng W i l l i a m s ha d no r e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on of p ri v acy i n h i s st at em en t s ati ssu e; (3 ) d i sm i ssi n g W i l l i am s’ § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s ag ai n st W e i s s , A nde r s on, a nd B i l l i ng, C oc hr a n; a nd ( 4) c onc l udi ng W e i s s , A nde r s on, a nd B illin g , C o c h r a n w e r e e n title d to a s s e rt F lo r id a ’s litig a tio n p r iv ile g e a s ad e f e n s e to s u it. A F F I R M E D .