# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 18 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

St ev on Anza ld ua

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

N o r t h e a s t A m b u l a n c e a n d F i r e P r o t e c t i o n D i s t

r i c t ; D e r e k M a

y s , i n h i s i n d i v i d

u a l c a p a c i t y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Cl aren ce Yo un g, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as th e Nor th eas t Am bu la nc e an d F ire

Pro te ct io n Di st ric t Bo ard Mem be r; B rid ge t Qu in li sk -Dai le y , in he r of fic ia l

cap aci ty as th e Nor th eas t Am bu la nc e an d F ire Pro te ct io n Di st ric t Bo ard Mem be r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ro be rt Lee , in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Quen ti n R an do lp h, i n h is in di vi du al an d
of fic al cap aci ty as th e Nor th eas t Am bu la nc e an d F ire Pro te ct io n Di st ric t Fi re Ch ie f; Ke nn et h F arwel l, i n h is in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty as th e Nor th eas t

Am bu la nc e an d F ire Pro te ct io n Di st ric t Ba tt al io n C he if

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Kate W el ge , in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 5
Fil ed : J ul y

10 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MURP HY an d SHEPHERD, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d HARPOOL, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

St ev on Anz al du a wor ke d fo r th e Nor th eas t Am bu la nc e an d Fi re Pro te ct io n

D i s tri ct (“ Fi re Dis tri ct ”) as a fu ll -ti m e pa ram ed ic an d fir efi gh te r. Afte r th e F i r e

Dis tri ct su sp en de d Anz al du a fo r pu rp or te dl y fai li ng to res po nd to a di rect iv e is su ed
by Ch ie f Ken ne th Farwe ll

, Anz al du a em ai le d a ne wsp ap er rep or te r ex pr es si ng

co nc ern s ab ou t th e Fi re Dis tri ct an d ab ou t Ch ie f Farwe ll in pa rti cu la r. The em ai l

“ sh oc ke d” an d “ an ge red ” m an y of Anz al du a’s co -wo rk ers

. Tw o ba tt al io n ch ie fs

no te d it “ fo st ered di vi si on be twee n A n z a l d u a an d hi s co -wo rk ers , an d be twee n th e

Dis tr i c t f i r e fig ht ers an d [Ch ie f] Farwe ll .” As a res ul t, th e Fi re Dis tri ct te rm in at ed

Anz al du a.

Anz al du a br ou gh t th is act io n in fed e r a l d i s t r ic t co ur t, al le gi ng th at th e Fi re

Dis tri ct an d th e in di vi du al s in vo lv ed in hi s te rm in at io n vi ol at ed hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free sp eech by ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t hi m fo r em ai li ng th e rep or te r an d th at Ch ie f

Fa rw el l an d Anz al du a’s ex -g irl fri en d vi ol at ed fed eral an d sta te co m put er pr iva cy la

w s by acces si ng hi s email a cco un t an d ob ta in in g hi s emails . The d efen da nt s m ov ed to

di sm is s Anz al du a’s co m

pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ). The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n in pa rt an d gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt, al lo win g so m e

of Anz al du a’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s to pr oc eed bu t di sm is si ng al l hi s ot he r cl ai m s

The Hon or ab le M. Dou g l a s H a r po ol

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

-2

-wit h pr ejud ic e. The di st ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly de ni ed Anz al du a le av e to am en d hi s

co m pu te r pr iv acy l a w c l a im s. The rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s th en m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Anz al du a m ov ed to de fer ru l i n g on

su m m ary jud gm en t or to gr an t ad di ti on al ti m e to co nd uc t di sc ov ery. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n t o de fer an d th en gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e

de fen da nt s o n An zal du a’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s. An zal du a n ow ap pe al s.

Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t

to th e de fen da nt s on Anz al du a’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s. W e al so affi rm th e de ni al

of le av e to am en d Anz al du a’s fed eral co m pu te r pr iv acy la w cl ai m s. W e rev ers e th e

di st ric t co ur t’s d e ni al of le av e to am en d Anz al du a’s st at e co m pu te r pr iv acy la w

cl ai m s.

I. Back gr ou nd

Anz al du a be ga n wor ki ng fo r th e Fi re Dis tri ct as a pa rt- ti m e pa ram ed ic in 20 08

. In Apr il 20 11

, he a c c e p t e d a po si ti on as a fu ll -ti m e pa ram ed ic an d fir efi gh te r.

Fo ll owi ng st an da rd pra ct ic e es ta bl is he d i n it s col le ct iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t wi th

th e fir efi gh te rs un io n (“ Fi re Dis tri ct CBA”)

, th e Fi re Dist ric t su bjec te d Anz al du a to

a on e-year pr ob at io na ry pe rio d. In A pr il 20 12

, be fo re th e pr ob at io na ry pe rio d

ex pi red

, Ch ie f Farwe ll is su ed Anz al du a a writ te n rep rimand fo r ne gl ect of eq ui pm en t

an d n eg le ct of p ro pe rty after th e Fi re Dis tri ct fo un d a ho le in th e in te rio r wal l o f an

am bu la nc e Anz al du a ha d wor ke d in

. Anz al du a si g ne d th e rep rimand bu t de ni ed

res po ns ib il it y fo r th e ho le an d st at ed he di sa gr eed wit h t h e di sc ip li na ry act io n. In

co nju nc ti on wit h th e rep rimand

, th e Fi re Dis tri ct ex te nd ed Anz al du a’s pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d si x m on th s fo r “ pr of es si on al m is co nd uc t an d ge ne ral be ha vi or .” J.A. 24 3. It

al so warn ed hi m th at “ [a]ny fu rth er rep rimand s, ve rb al or writ te n, or an y co nd uc t of

di sc ip li na ry act io n wil l su bjec t y ou to im m ed ia t e t erm in at io n.” J.A. 24 3. The Fi re

Dis tri ct CBA pe rm it te d th e Fi re Dis tri ct to te rm in at e pr ob at io na ry em pl oyees wit h or

wit ho ut cau se

.

-3

-On Ju ly 21

, 20 12

, a Fi re Dis tri ct li eu te na nt wro te Ch ie f Farwe ll a m em or an du m

st at in g th at Anz al du a an d hi s pa rtn er ha d res po nd ed to a cal l bu t th at th ei r rep or t fo r

th e cal l was in ex pl ic ab ly m is si n g f ro m th e Fi re Dis tri ct ’s rep or ti ng syste m

. The

li eu te na nt co pi ed Anz al du a on th e m em or an du m

. Th e F i r e Dis tri ct su sp en de d

Anz al du a’s pa rtn er, who was res po ns ib le fo r fil in g th e rep or t, bu t di d no t di sc ip li ne

Anz al du a.

On Ju ly 24

, 20 12

, Anz al du a dr aft ed an em ai l on hi s pe rs on al Gm ai l acco un t to

Dr. D a v i d Tan

, a un iv ers it y pr of es so r who pr ov id ed m ed ic al ov ers ig ht fo r th e Fi re

Dis tri ct bu t was no t em

pl oyed by th e Fi re Dis tri ct or wit hi n it s ch ai n of co m m an d.

The em ai l st at ed

, in pe rti ne nt pa rt, “ I am m ak in g y ou aware th at th ere are so m e m ajor

is su es wit h th e EMS si de of op erat io ns

. In st art in g, no t ev eryone in th is de pa rtment

is op erat in g un de r th e sa m e ru le s.” J.A. 24 6. Anz al du a cl ai m s he sa ve d th e em ai l as

a d raft bu t n ev er s en t i t.

Nev ert h e l e ss , th e em ai l was se nt fro m Anz al du a’s Gm ai l acco un t to Dr. Tan

on Ju ly 2 4, 20 12

. A we ek la t e r , o n J u l y 3 1, 20 12 , a co py o f th e Dr. Tan em ai l was

fo rward ed fro m Anz al du a’s Gm ai l acco un t to Ch ie f Farwe ll

. Afte r le arn in g of th e

em ai l, Fi re Ch ie f Qui nt en Ran do lp h di rect ed Ch ie f Farwe ll to in ve st ig at e Anz al du a’s

c o n c e r n s

. On Ju ly 31

, 20 12

, Ch ie f Farwe ll se nt an em ai l to Anz al du a’s Gm ai l

acco un t st at in g he was “ co nc ern ed an d ob li ga te d to in qu ire an d in ve st ig at e y ou r

co n c e r n s ,” an d or de rin g Anz al du a to “ pr ov id e fo r m e in writ in g th e W he re, W he n, How, W ha t, an d W ho of y ou r co nc ern s by th e en d of th e da y on Aug 2, 20 12 .” J.A.

24 5. Anz al du a di d no t pro vi de Ch ie f Farwe ll th e req ue st ed in fo rm at io n. Anz al du a

m ai nt ai ns th is is be cau se he ne ve r rec ei ve d C hi ef Fa rwel l’s em ai l.

On Aug us t 7, 2 01 2, t he Fir e Dis tri ct Bo ard of Dire ct or s or de red Anz al du a to

ap pe ar at a di sc ip li na ry

he ari ng on Aug us t 1 3, 2 01 2. Th e Bo ard ex pl ai ne d:

-4

-On Ju ly 24

, 20 12

, y ou fo rward ed an em ai l to Dr. Da vi d K. Tan

su gg es ti ng th at “ m a

jo r is su es ” ex is te d wit hi n th e Dis tri ct ’s EMS
Div is io n

. Y o u w e n t on to su gg es t th at th e Dis tri ct was en ga gi ng in

“ ru le ” b e n d i n g fo r cert ai n em pl oyees. Dr. Tan is no t wit hi n y ou r de pa rtment ch ai n of co m

m an d an d he do es no t ha nd le in te rd ep art m en ta l

gr ie va nc es

. You r pu bl ic st at em en ts th eref or e ap pe a r t o b e di vi si ve , in fla m m at or y , an d wit ho ut mer i t

. W he n pr ov id ed an op po rtu ni ty by [Ch ie f Farwe ll ] to el ab or at e on y ou r st at em en ts

, y ou f a i l ed to do so wit hi n t he ti m e al lo tt ed . Suc h fa il ur e st ren gt he ne d t he be li ef t ha t y ou r

st at em en ts were in te nt io na ll y pe rv ers e an d im pr op erl y m ot iv at ed

. Su ch
be ha vi or , if de em ed tru e, is a di rect vi ol at io n of th e Dis tr i c t ’s c o d e of

co nd uc t. The Bo ard is he reb y pr ov id in g y ou an op po rtu ni ty to be he ard

on th is m at te r be fo re de ci di ng whe th er di sc ip li na ry act io n is warra nt ed

.

J.A. 24 9- 50

. Tho ug h th e Fi re Dis tri ct CBA di d no t pr ov id e pr ob at io na ry em pl oyees

a rig ht to un io n rep res en ta ti on at di sc ip li na ry he ari ng s, th e Bo ard ad vi se d Anz al du a

he wou ld be all owe d un io n re pr es en ta ti on if h e d es ire d, an d An zal du a acc ep te d t he

as si st an ce o f EMS Li eu te na nt an d S ho p S te ward Jen ni fer B arb aro tt o.

At th e di sc ip l i n a r y h eari ng , Anz al du a ex pl ai ne d to th e Bo ard th at he di d no t

res po nd to Ch ie f Farwe ll ’s di rect iv e be cau se he ne ve r rece iv ed Ch ie f Farwe ll ’s em ai l.

He t o l d t h e B oa rd th at co m m an d st aff typic al ly is su ed di rect iv es th ro ug h th e Fi re

Dis tri ct ’s se pa rat e em ai l syste m

. He al so ex pl ai ne d th e co nc ern s he ex pr es se d in th e

Dr. Tan em ai l. Howev er, th e Bo ard to ld Anz al du a th e di sc ip li na ry he ari ng wou ld

fo cu s on hi s fai lu re to res po nd to Ch ie f Farwe ll ’s di rect iv e, an d no t on hi s un de rlyin g

co nc ern s

. O n A u g u s t 20

, 20 12

, th e Bo ard fo un d Anz al du a “ fai le d to res po nd to a

di rect iv e is su ed by a ch ie f of fic er,” a fai lu re it de em ed “ un acce pt ab le ,” an d

un an im ou sl y vo te d t o s u sp en d Anz al du a fo r 10 da y s fo r co nd uc t un be co m in g of a

Fi re Dis tri ct em

pl oyee. J.A. 25 3. The un io n ag reed wit h th e su sp en si on . The Fi re

Dis tri ct al so warn ed Anz al du a “ th at an y fu tu re m is co nd uc t, wit ho ut r eg ard to th e

se ve rit y , wil l re su lt in y ou r im m ed ia te ter m in at io n.” J.A. 25 4.

-5

-On Aug us t 23

, 20 12

, Anz al du a se nt an em ai l to Eli zab et he Hol la nd

, a rep or te r

fo r th e St . Lou is Po st -Dis pa tc h. Th e em ai l s ta te d:

You ha ve co ve red th e Nor th eas t Am bu la nc e an d Fi re pr ot ect io n di st ric t be fo re on a va ri e t y o f i s s ue s. I am cu rren tl y em pl oyed th ere as a Fu ll -Tim e Fi refi gh te r/P aram ed ic

. I am co m in g to y ou ho pi ng to rem ai n

an on y m ou s. The re are se ve ral is su es th at are ne w. So me p e rta in to

pe ns io n is su es

. Oth ers pe rta in to pu bl ic sa fet y

. I ha ve tri ed to reac h ou t

to th e di rect or s on ly to be di sc ip li ne d fo r 10 da y s fo r an em ai l se nt to th e

m ed ic al di rect or wit h cri ti cal co nc ern s reg ard in g th e se rv ic e we pr ov id e ci ti zen s as it pe rta in s to m ed ic al em erg en ci es

. Any ti m e a st an d is ta ke n

on th is is su e it le ad s to so m et hi ng pu ni ti ve in th e fo rm of su sp en si on or

te rm in at io n. I ha ve be en em pl oyed th ere fo r al m os t 4 y e a r s no w we ha ve ne w pro bl em s.

W e ha ve be en sh ut ti ng do wn Pu m pe rs (Fi re App a r a t u s ) du e to

st affi ng m is ha ps ( R e s ul ti ng fro m th e CMO). W e ha ve SCBA’s (Sel f-co nt ai ne d Brea th in g App arat us ) th at are no t co m pl ia nt wit h NFPA (Nat io na l Fi re Pro te ct io n Ass oc ia ti on ) 19 71

. Thi s is a gu id el in e to sa fe

pr act ic es , po li ci es an d e q u i p men t

. W e are to ld on th e flo or (The

wor ke rs act ua ll y res po nd in g to th e cal ls ) th at we do no t ha ve th e m on ey

. W e ha ve 6- 7 W ORKING SCBA’s rig ht no w in th e de pa rtment. Thi s is
aft er 2 ne w Ch ev y Su bu rb an s were pu rch as ed fo r co m m an d st aff. The

ve hi cl es to ta le d so m ewh ere aro un d 10 00 00 .00 aft er th e a d d it io n of
th in gs li ke Lig ht -Bar s and Si ren s were ad de d. One of th es e Co m m an d

ve hi cl es is Adm in is tra ti ve (Ch ie fs Vehi cl e). The ot he r ve hi cl e is us ed

on sh ift an d DOES res po nd to cal ls an d as su m es co m m an d. Thi s is a

“ W or ki ng ” ve hi cl e. The re was no th in g wro ng wit h th e Ch ie f’s ve hi cl e

pr io r to th is

. In fact

, Tha t o l d Ch ie f’s is no w th e “ Tria ge ” ve hi cl e

eq ui pp ed wit h ALS (Ad va nc ed Life Su pp or t) eq uip m en t w hic h is st affe d by th e Ch ie f Med ic al Offi cer ru nn in g at 47 07 (Cal l si gn ). Thi s ve hi cl e is “ su pp os e” to res po nd t o c a l l s du rin g th e CMO’s du ty ho ur s. If y ou

c a l l Nor th Cen tra l di sp at ch (3 14 -4 28 -1 13 3) y ou can act ua ll y ge t th e

nu m be rs of 47 07 (Co m

m an d Veh ic le ) res po ns es

. Thi s po in t is si m pl e. The sa f e t y o f t he m en is se co nd ary to co m m an d ve hi cl es

. W e are al read y un de rs ta ffed an d sh or t on wor ki ng SCBA’s whi ch are no t NFPA

-6

-Sec. 19 71 co m pl ia nt whi ch m ean s th e di st ric t as su m es leg al li ab il it y if

an y Deat h/ Dis ab il it y oc cu rs as a res ul t of a st ru ct ur e fir e/ Fi re. Thi s is

a sa fet y is su e to ALL of m y Peer s on th e flo or

. The se Ve h i c le s

so m eh ow m an ag ed to be a pr io rit y ov er o ur saf

et y

.

I wou ld li ke to ad dr es s th e is su e of th e Ch ie f Med ic al Offi cer an d
hi s v eh ic le

. The ve hi cl e le av es th e d is tri ct (Nor m an dy) eve ry da y wit h
hi m to go ho m e (O’Fall on 30 m il es away). Thi s ve h i c l e d oe s NOT

res po nd to cal ls whe n he is go ne

. The nu m be rs wil l sh o w t h a t

. Thi s Veh ic le ha s ac tu al ly be en pa rk ed ou ts id e of hi s ba r. I ha ve m ul ti pl e ph ot o’s ti m e-s ta m

pe d an d da te d of th e ve hi cl e pa rk ed be hi nd hi s ba r (Da
Eli te Bar/ Gril l). Thi s Dis tri ct ve hi cl e was be in g us ed f o r p e r s on al
bu si ne ss co nd uc te d a t a ba r wit h Tax -Payer ga s. IT ha s si nc e be en

pa rk ed in th e ba ck of th e fir eh ou se

. The CMO (Ch ie f Med ic al Offi cer)
de al s wit h th e EMS (Em erg en cy Med ic al Serv ic es ) or Am bu la nc e si de
of op erat io ns

. He ha s be en se nd in g ou t te xt di sc us si ng hi s ba r sp eci al s vi a di st ric t te le ph on e. As of Aug us t 22 n d

, Th e D EA ha s pu ll ed ou r

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es be cau se th e CMO Fai le d to ren ew th e li cen se fo r th es e su bs ta nc es

. Now we ha ve a PUBLIC sa fet y is su e. Thi s affe ct s th e

pe op le we se rv e as well as th e Para m ed ic s ab il it y st ab il iz e med i c a l

em erg en ci es su ch as se iz ur es

. No pa in m ed s fo r Ch es t pa in or frac tu res

pr io r to im m ob il iz at io n o f th e in jury.

So y ou m ay as k why I co m e to y ou wit h t h i s

. I was rece nt ly

su sp en de d fo r 10 da y s a s a res ul t of an em ai l I was go in g to se nd
Med ic al Dire ct or (Thi s is a Doc to r) di sc us si ng su pp ly is su es

. The CMO

was m ad e aware of

th is em ai l and pu t m e in fro nt of th e bo ard ch arg ed
wit h co nd uc t un be co m in g. He al so ch arg ed m e wit h br eak in g th e ch ai n of co m m an d. I am cu rren tl y se rv in g m y su sp en si on . Th ey (CM O a nd

a Bat

. C h ie f) ha ve ex te nd ed m y pr ob at io n an d writ te n m e up an d tri ed

to fir e m e 3 ti m es

. The y can do th is be cau se I am st il l cu rre nt ly on

pr ob at io n an d no t en ti tl ed to un io n le ga l co un se l or rep res en ta ti on ev en th ou gh I a m a m em

be r. I ha ve be en a Para m ed ic go in g on 13 y ears

. I
ha ve be en in th e fie ld fo r 15 y ears to ta l. The y ha ve ci rcu mv en te d m y sh ift su pe rv i s o r a n d go ne di rect ly to di sc ip li na ry act io n. My Sh ift

su pe rv is or s ha ve sa ve d m y job

. I lo ve m

y job an d Co -wo rk ers

. I fig ur e if I ge t te rm in at ed an d th es e pr ob le m s ge t fix ed to pr ov id e a be tt er sa fer

-7

-se rv ic e to th e pe op le an d th e fir efi gh te r/p aram ed ic s... th en it was wor th

i t

. I wou ld pr efer fo r th is to st ay co nf id en ti al

. The re is m or e to th is i f

y ou ha ve an y ad di ti on al qu es ti on s pl eas e rep ly if y ou se e th is a s

so m et hi ng y ou co ul d h el p c ha ng e[.]

J.A. 2 55 -5 6.

Afte r Anz al du a se nt th e em ai l to Hol la nd

, a co py of th e em ai l was forward ed

fro m Anz al du a’s Gm ai l acco un t to Ch ie f Farwe ll

. The em ai l was su bs eq ue nt ly

pa ss ed aro un d th e Fi re Dis tri ct

, al th ou g h th e reco rd do es no t m ak e cl ear by who m

. Sev eral Fi re D ist

ri ct em plo y ees rep or te d th ei r ne ga ti ve reac ti on s to th e Hol la nd em ai l.

Lieu te na nt Barb aro tt o “was sh oc ke d bo th by th e co nt en t of th e em ai l, whi ch

co nt ai ne d nu m ero us fal se st at em en ts

, an d th at [An zal du a] wou ld se nd su ch an em ai l.”

J.A. 25 9. Sh e st at ed “ Anz al du a’s de ci si on to se nd su ch an em ai l an ge red m an y of hi s

co -wo rk ers , as we were co nc ern ed th at it wou ld m ak e us a pu bl ic la ug hi ng st oc k. W e

kn ew he ha d writ te n it fo r pe rs on al reas on s an d co ns id ered it to be a sl ap in th e face

to th e res t of us , an d were tro ub le d th at he wou ld pu t hi s own pe rs on al ag en da ab ov e

th e ot he r fir efi gh te rs in th e Dis tri ct .” J.A. 25 9. Dan ie l Newberr y , a ba tt al io n chi ef,

ex pl ai ne d “ [t]he em ai l sh oc ke d an d irr it at ed m an y fir efi gh te rs in th e Dis tri ct (s ev eral

of who m ex pr es se d th is se nt im en t in m y pr es en ce) an d fo s t e red di vi si on be twee n

Anz al du a an d hi s co -wo rk ers , an d be twee n th e Dis tri ct fir efi gh te rs an d [ C h i ef]

Farwe ll .” J.A. 26 2. Ph il ip Bo li n g , a n o th er ba tt al io n ch ie f, ob se rv ed an id en ti cal

reac ti on to th e Hol la nd em ai l. J .A. 26 6.

On Sep te m

be r 13

, 20 12

, th e Bo ard or de red Anz al du a to ap pe ar at a di sc ip li na ry

he ari ng sch ed ul ed for Sep te m be r 24 , 20 12 . It ex pl ai ne d:

On Aug us t 23

, 20 12

, it is be li ev ed th at y ou ci rcu la te d a pe rs on al em ai l

pu bl ic ly de fam in g an d de ni gr at in g th e Dis tri ct

. Mo re si gn ifi can t is th e fact th at it co nt ai ne d fal se an d m is le ad in g st at em en ts

. Su ch st at em en ts

ap pe ared to be in te nt io na ll y di vi si ve , in fla m m at or y , an d wit ho ut jus t

-8

-cau se

. It is be li ev ed th a t su ch st at em en ts were al so pu rp os efu ll y

pe rv ers e an d im

pr op erl y m ot iv at ed

. Su ch be ha vi or , if de em ed tru e, is
a d ire ct vi ol at io n o f th e Dis tri ct ’s cod e o f co nd uc t.

Not ic e o f Heari ng , R. Doc. 3 4- 25

.

On Sep te m

be r 24

, 20 12

, th e Bo ard vo te d to te rm in at e Anz al d u a. Bo ard

Mem be rs Ro be rt Lee an d Derek M a ys vo te d fo r th e te rm in at io n, whi le Bo ard

Mem be r Bri dg et Qui nl is k- Dail ey vo te d ag ai ns t. The Bo ard se nt Anz al du a a

te rm in at io n l et te r, whi ch ex pl ai ne d t he ba si s fo r it s d eci si on :

The Bo ard acce pt ed y ou r ad m is si on an d th ere fro m co nc lu de d th at y ou ci rcu la te d an em ai l pu bl ic ly d efam in g an d de ni gr at in g th e Dis tri ct wit ho ut jus t cau se

. It was al so de te rm in ed th at y ou r st at em en ts were

se di ti ou sl y fal se an d m is le ad in g as w e l l a s il l-i nt en de d, di vi si ve , an d

ret al ia to ry fo r pr io r di sc ip li ne is su ed by th e Bo ard in go od fai th

. Even
th ou gh y ou ad m it te d con ve y in g su ch st at em en ts to

, at le as t, on e pu bl ic

en ti ty; th e nu m

be r of ot he r pe op le an d en ti ti es th a t y ou act ua ll y

co nv ey ed th em to is un kn own

. The Bo ard fo un d y ou r ex pl an a t i o n fo r

pu bl ic ly ex pr es si ng an d ci rcu la ti ng fal se an d m is le ad in g in fo rm at io n to

ot he rs as n ot cred ib le

.

Lett er of Te r mi n at io n, R. Doc

. 34 -2 6. Bo th Lee an d Mays be li ev ed “ Anz al du a’s

em ai l to Eli zab et h[ e] Hol la nd cau se d di sr up ti on wit hi n hi s de pa rtment” an d “ ha d th e

po te nt ia l to cau se fu rth er di sr u p t i o n if Anz al du a rem ai ne d em pl oyed wit h th e

Dis tri ct .” J.A. 220

. In vo ti ng to te rm in at e Anz al du a, th ey co ns id ered

, am on g ot he r

th in gs , “ th e ne ed fo r effi ci en cy an d lo y al ty wit hi n th e wor kf or ce a n d t h e di vi si ve

na tu re o f Anz al du a’s em ai l t o Ho ll an d.” J.A. 21 6, 2 20

.

The reco rd co nt ai n s de cl arat io ns an d do cu m en ts be ari ng on th e co nc ern s

A n z a l du a ex pr es se d in th e Hol la nd em ai l. The Fi re Dis tri ct ha d im pl em en t e d

m in im um st affi ng pr oc ed ur es at le as t by Decem be r 20 11 be cau se of st rai ne d fin an ci al

-9

-res ou rces

. Mays st at ed th at th e us e of “ m in im um m an ni ng ” di d no t cau se pr ob le m s

fo r th e Fi re Dis tri ct ’s pr ov is io n of se rv ic es

. In 20 12

, th e Fi re Dis tri ct rece iv ed far

m or e am bu la nc e cal ls th an fir e cal ls an d dec id ed to us e o nl y on e p um pe r be cau se it

co ul d n ot affo rd to run two pu m pe rs an d t wo am

bu la nc es

.

Eve n bef or e Anz al du a wro te to Hol la nd

, th e Fi re Dist ric t ha d be en in te res te d

i n p u r c h as in g ne w SCBAs

. It te st ed di ffer en t types of SCBAs in su m m er 20 1 2 t o

de te rm in e whi ch type th e fir efi gh te rs pr efer red

. Anz al du a pa rti ci pa te d in th is te st in g,

whi ch th e Fi re Dis tri ct co mple te d be fo re Anz al du a se nt th e Hol la nd em ai l. The

Bo ard ap pr ov ed th e p ur ch as e o f ne w SCBAs in Sep te m be r 20 12

.

The Fi re Dis tri ct pu rch as ed two ne w sp or t ut il it y ve hi cl es in 20 12 be cau se it s

pr io r ve h i c l e s h ad di ffi cu lt y dr iv in g th ro ug h wate r at fir e sc en es

. The Bo ard

di sc us se d th e pu rch as e at a pu bl ic m eet in g in May 20 12

. The Fi re Dis tri ct ’s ve hi cl e

us e p ol ic y

pe rm it te d C hi ef Fa rwel l t o u se hi s v eh ic le for reas on ab le pe rs on al tra ve l

wit hi n 60 m il es of th e Fi re Dis tri ct

. W hi le th e po li cy pr oh ib it ed Ch ie f Farwe ll fro m 2

us in g t he ve hi cl e “ whi le en ga ge d i n a ny com m erci al en de av or ,” it pe rm it te d h im to

us e th e ve hi cl e t o d r iv e to an d fro m hi s pl ace of wor k, so lo ng as hi s pl ace of wor k

was wit hi n 60 m il es of th e Fi re Dis tri ct

. R. Doc

. 34 -2 3, at 2. The reco rd co nt ai ns no

ev id en ce su gg es ti ng Ch ie f Farwe ll ’s r es ta ur an t was m or e th an 60 m il es away

. The

ve hi cl e u se po li cy

en ab le d C hi ef Fa rwel l t o a cces s h is ve hi cl e whi le away fro m th e

fir eh ou se in cas e he n e e d e d t o res po nd to a cal l. In 20 12

, Ch ie f Farwe ll is su ed

di rect io ns an d co m

m an ds to fir efi gh te rs res po nd in g to fir es

. The reco rd co nt ai ns no

ev id en ce of a po li cy pr oh ib it in g Ch ie f Farwe ll fro m us in g hi s ph on e to te xt sp eci al s

to co -wo rk ers

.

Anz al du a ha d acce ss to al l of th e Fi re Dis tri ct ’s po li ci es an d pr oc ed ur es du rin g 2

hi s emplo y m en t.

-1 0-On Aug us t 30

, 20 12

, Fi re Ch ie f Ran do lp h an d Ch ie f Farwe ll at te nd ed a pu bl ic

m eet in g in Je ffer so n Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, reg ard in g th e Fi r e Dis tri ct ’s ex pi red na rco ti cs

li cen se

. Hol la nd pu bl is he d an art ic le on Aug us t 31

, 2 0 1 2

, w hi ch rep or te d on th e

Je ffer so n C it y

m eet in g.

Anz al du a fil ed th is la wsu it in Ju ly 2 0 1 3

, na m in g as de fen da nt s th e Fi re

Dis tri ct ; Lee an d Mays, in th ei r in di vi d u a l a n d of fic ia l cap aci ti es ; Bo ard Mem be rs

Cl aren ce You ng an d Qui nl is k- Dail ey , in th ei r of fi ci al ca pa ci ti es ; Fi re Ch ie f Ran do lp h

an d Ch ie f Farwe ll

, in th ei r in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap aci ti es ; an d Kat e W el ge , Anz al du a’s ex -g irl fri en d, in he r in di vi du al ca pa ci ty

. A nz al du a’s co m

pl ai nt co nt ai ne d

fo ur co un ts

. Co un t 1, whi ch Anz al du a br ou gh t un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, al le ge d Lee,
Mays, Qui nl is k- Dail ey , Fi re Ch ief Rand ol ph

, an d Ch ie f Farwe ll te rm in at ed Anz al du a

in vi ol at io n of hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free sp eech

. Co un t 2, al so br ou gh t un de r

se ct io n 19 83

, al le ge d al l th e de fen da nt s co ns pi red to te rm in at e Anz al du a in vi ol at io n

of hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free sp eech

. Co un t 3 al le ge d Ch ie f Fa r w e ll an d

We l g e acce ss ed Anz al du a’s Gm ai l acco un t an d ob ta in ed th e Dr. Tan an d Hol la n d

em ai ls in vi ol a t i o n o f th e St or ed W ire an d Elec tro ni c Co m m un ic at io ns an d

Tran sa ct io na l Rec or ds Acces s Act (“ SCA”)

, 18 U.S.C. § 27 01

. Co un t 4 al le ge d th is

acce ss vi ol at ed th e Mi ss ou ri Co m pu te r Tam

pe rin g Act (“ MC TA ” )

, M o

. Rev

. St at

. § 5 69 .09 5.

The de fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s Anz al du a’s co m pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of

Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ). The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt an d de ni ed th e

m ot io n in pa rt, di sm is si ng wit h pr ejud ic e al l of Anz al du a’s cl ai m s exc ep t hi s Co un t

1 cl ai m s ag ai ns t Lee, Ma ys , an d Ch ie f Farwe ll in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. Anz al du a m ov ed for reco ns id erat io n o f th e m ot io n- to -d is m is s ru li ng or fo r le av e to

am en d hi s co m

pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at m ot io n in a b e ya n c e t o al lo w

Anz al du a to su bm it a pr op os ed fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt

, whi ch he su bs eq ue nt ly di d.

The pr op os ed fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt co nt ai ne d th e sa m e fo ur co un ts as th e or ig in al

co m pl ai nt

, bu t ag ai ns t th e fo ll owi ng de fen da nt s: Co un t 1 ag ai ns t th e Fi re Dis tri ct an d

-1 1-Le e , Mays, Fi re Ch ie f Ran do lp h, an d Ch ie f Farwe ll

, in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti e s ;

Co un t 2 ag ai ns t Lee, Mays, Fi re Ch ie f Ran do lp h, an d Ch ie f F arwel l, in th ei r

in di vi du al cap aci ti es ; and Co un ts 3 and 4 aga in st Ch ie f Farwe ll an d Welg e, in th ei r

in di vi du al cap aci ti es

.

W hi le th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered Anz al du a’s pr op os ed fir st am en de d

co m pl ai nt

, L ee , Ma

y s, an d Ch ie f Farwe ll (la te r joi ne d by Fi re Ch ie f Ran do lp h) m ov ed

fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. I n r e s p o ns e, Anz al du a

fil ed a Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io n req ue st in g t h a t t he di st ric t co ur t de fer ru li ng on th e

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n or gr an t ad di ti on al ti m e to co nd uc t dis co ve ry be fo re do in g

so

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io n. It th en gr an te d Anz al du a le av e

to am en d hi s cl ai m s un de r Co un ts 1 an d 2 an d de ni ed hi m le av e to am en d hi s cl ai m s

un de r Co un ts 3 an d 4. An zal du a fi le d h is fir st am en de d c om pl ai nt on Feb ru ary 13

, 20 14

, al le gi ng on ly th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s in Co un ts 1 an d 2. The di st ric t co ur t

su bs eq ue nt ly gran te d t he de fen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n a nd di sm is se d t he

fir st am en de d co m

pl ai nt in it s en ti r e t y, f

i n di ng th e de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y un de r th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc in g te st

. See Pi ck eri ng v. Bd

. of Edu c.,

39 1 U.S. 5 63 (19 68 ).

On ap pe al

, Anz al du a ch a l l e n g e s th e di st ric t co ur t’s (1 ) gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , (2 ) de ni al of hi s Ru le

56 (d ) m ot io n to de fer ru li ng on th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, (3 ) di sm is sa l o f th e

Fi re Dist ric t, whic h nev er j oi ne d th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, (4) den ia l of leav e

to am en d t he SCA cl ai m s, an d (5 ) de ni al of l eav e to am en d t he MCTA cl ai m s.

-1 2-II. Co un ts 1 an d 2 : Fi rs t Am en dm en t Cl ai m s

A. Qual ifi ed Im

m un it y

W e fir st ad dr es s Anz al du a’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th e

de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. “ W e rev ie w th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e

li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [An zal du a], th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” McC ul lo ug h v. Uni v. of

Ark

. fo r Med

. Sci s., 55 9 F.3 d 85 5, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e wil l affi rm “ if th e m ov an t

sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y mat e r i al fact an d th e m ov an t is

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a).

Th e t w o pr on gs of ou r qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s req ui re us to an swe r (1 ) whe th er th e fact s al le ge d de m on st rat e a vi ol at io n of th e em pl oyee’s co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht an d (2 ) whe th er th at rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e em pl oyee’s

fir in g. Hem

m in gh au s v. Mi ss ou ri, 75 6 F.3 d 11 00

, 11 10 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ti ng Tol an

v. Co tt on , 13 4 S. Ct

. 18 61

, 18 65 -6 6 (2 01 4) ). Thi s cas e can be res ol ve d so le ly un de r

th e fir st pr on g. “ The in qu iry in to th e pr ot ect ed st a t u s o f s p e e c h is on e of la w, no t

fact .” Co nn ic k v . My ers , 46 1 U.S. 1 38 , 14 8 n .7 (1 98 3)

.

W e us e th e fir st pr on g to de te rm in e whe th er a F i r s t Am en dm en t vi ol at io n

oc cu rred

. See Garce tt i v. C e b a l lo s, 54 7 U.S. 41 0, 41 7 (2 00 6) (“ [T]he Fi rs t

Am en dm en t pr ot ect s a pu bl ic em pl oyee’s rig ht

, in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , to sp eak as

a ci ti zen ad dr es si ng m at te rs of pu bl ic co nc ern .”). The he art of th is de te rm in at io n is

th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc in g te st

, un de r whi ch we ba la nc e “ th e in te res ts of th e [em pl oyee],

as a ci ti zen , in co m

m en t i n g up on m at te rs of pu bl ic co nc ern an d th e in te res ts of th e

St at e, as an em

pl oyer, in pr om ot in g th e effi ci en cy of th e pu bl ic se rv ic es it pe rfo rm s

th ro ug h i ts em

pl oyees.” Pic ke rin g, 3 91 U.S. at 5 68

.

-1 3-Be fo re w e reac h th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc in g te st

, th ou gh

, we m ak e two pr el im in ary

in qu iri es to en su re th at th e em pl oyee an d th e em

pl oyer each ha s an in te res t t o

ba la nc e. The fir st in qu iry is to de te rm in e “ whe th er t he em pl oyee sp ok e as a ci ti zen

on a m at te r of

pu bl ic co nc ern .” Garce tt i, 54 7 U.S. a t 41 8. “ If t he an swe r is no , th e

em pl oyee ha s no Fi rs t Am en dm en t cau se of act i o n b a s ed on hi s or he r em pl oyer’s

reac ti on to th e sp eech

. If th e an swe r is y es , th en th e po ss ib il it y of a Fi rs t Am en dm en t

cl ai m ari se s.” Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

“ [I]f th e po ss ib il it y of a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m ha s ar is en ,” th en ou r se co nd

in qu iry is to “ ‘ask whe th er [th e em pl oyer] ha s pr o d u ced ev id en ce to in di cat e th e

sp eech ha d an ad ve rs e im pa ct on th e effi ci en cy of th e [em pl o ye r ’s ] o p erat io ns .’ ”

Hem m in gh au s, 75 6 F.3 d at 11 11 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Lin ds ey v. Ci ty of

Orri ck

, Mo

., 49 1 F.3 d 89 2, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). If th e em pl oyer sh ows a su ffi ci en t

ad ve rs e im

pa ct

, th en we pr oc eed to th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc in g te st

. If it do es no t, th en

th e qu al ifi ed im m

un it y de fen se m

us t fail

. Sex to n v. Mar ti n, 21 0 F.3 d 90 5, 91 3 (8t h

Ci r. 20 00 ).

1. Ma tt er o f Pu bl ic Co nc ern

Anz al du a arg ue s hi s Holl an d em ai l was a m at te r of pu bl ic co nc ern be cau se it

i mpli cat ed th e m is us e of pu bl ic m on ie s an d bo th fir efi gh te r an d pu bl ic sa fet y

. Th e

de fen da nt s re sp on d t ha t An zal du a si m pl y air ed pe rs on al em

pl oym en t g rie va nc es

.

“ To de te rm in e whe th er sp eech qu al ifi es as a m at te r of pu bl ic co nc ern , we m us t

ex am in e th e co nt en t, fo r m a n d c o nt ex t of th e sp eech

, as rev eal ed by th e who le

reco rd .” Sp arr v. W ard , 3 06 F.3 d 58 9, 59 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). “ ‘W he n sp eech rel at es

bo th t o an em

pl oyee’s pr iv at e in te res ts as well as m at te rs of pu bl ic co nc ern , th e

sp eech is pr ot ect ed if it is pr im ari ly m ot iv at ed by pu bl ic co nc ern .’ ” McC ul lo ug h, 55 9

F.3 d at 86 6 (q uo ti n g A l t o n e n v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is

, 48 7 F.3 d 55 4, 55 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 )). “ If th e m ai n m ot iv a t i on fo r th e sp eech was fu rth eri ng [th e em pl oyee’s]

-1 4-‘priv at e in te res ts rat he r th an to rai se is su es of pu bl ic co nc ern , h er sp eech is no t

pr ot e c t e d

, ev en if th e pu bl ic wou ld ha ve an in te res t in th e to pi c of he r sp eech .’ ”

Alt on en , 48 7 F.3 d at 55 9 (q uo ti ng B a i le y v. Dep ’t of Elem en ta ry an d Seco nd ary

Edu c., 45 1 F .3d 51 4, 5 18 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

Here, we are sk ep ti cal th at Anz al du a’s em ai l was pr im ari ly m oti va ted by pu bl ic

co nc ern , es pe ci al ly co ns id eri ng th at he se nt th e em ai l jus t da y s aft er be in g su sp en de d

an d th at th e em ai l si ng le d ou t Ch ie f Farwe ll

, wit h who m Anz al du a ha d, in th e wor ds

of th e di st ric t co ur t, “ an al read y st rai ne d rel at io ns hi p.” Howev er, we ne ed no t de ci de

w h et he r Anz al du a’s em ai l was pr im ari ly m ot iv at ed by pu bl ic co nc ern be cau se we

be li ev e Anz al du a’s cl ai ms f a il un de r th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc in g te st

. See W at ers v.

Ch ur ch il l, 51 1 U.S. 66 1, 68 0 (1 99 4) (p lu ral it y op in io n) (d ecl in in g to de ci de whe th er

em pl oyee’s sp eech was on a m at te r of pu bl ic co nc er n w h e r e th e “ po te nt ia l

di sr up ti ve ne ss of th e sp eech

. . . was en ou gh to ou twei gh wha te ve r Fi rs t Am en dm en t

va lu e it m ig ht ha ve ha d” ). Thu s we p ro ceed to th e n ex t s te p i n o ur in qu iry.

2. Ad ve rs e Effec t o n F ire Dis tri ct Oper at io ns

Anz al du a a r g u e s t he de fen da nt s can sa ti sf y th is st ep on ly if th ey pr es en t

sp eci fic ev id en ce of act ua l di sr up ti on

. Howev er, “ ‘[e] vi de nc e of act ua l di sr up ti on

. . . is no t req ui red in al l cas es .’ ” Bai le y , 45 1 F.3 d at 52 1 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng

Sh an ds v. Ci ty of Ken ne tt , 99 3 F .2d 13 37 , 13 44 (8t h C ir. 19 93 )); se e al so Tin dl e v

. Cau de ll

, 56 F.3 d 96 6, 97 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ A sh ow i n g o f a c t u al di sr up ti on is no t

al way s req ui red in th e ba la nc in g pr oc es s un de r Pi ck eri ng .”). Thi s is be cau se “ ‘w e do

no t see th e ne ces si ty fo r an em pl oyer to al lo w ev en ts to un fo ld to th e ex te nt th at th e

d i s r up ti on of th e of

fic e an d th e de st ru ct io n of wor ki ng rel at io ns hi ps is m an i f e s t

be fo re ta ki ng act io n.’” Hem m in gh au s, 75 6 F.3 d at 11 12 (q uo ti ng Co nn ic k, 46 1 U.S.

a t 15 2)

. Thu s “ ‘[w] e ha ve co ns is te nt ly gi ve n gr eat er de fere nc e to go ve rn m e n t

pr ed ic ti on s of ha rm us ed to jus ti fy res tri ct io n of em pl oyee sp eech th an to pr ed ic ti on s

of ha rm us ed to jus ti fy res tri ct io ns on th e sp eech of th e pu bl ic at la rg e.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng

-1 5-W at ers , 51 1 U.S. at 67 3 (p lu ral it y op in io n) (“ Few of th e ex am pl es we ha ve di sc us se d

in vo l v e ta ng ib le

, pr es en t in te rfer en ce wit h th e ag en cy ’s op erat io n. The da ng er in

th em is m os tl y sp ecu la ti ve .”)). And “ ‘w e ha ve gi ve n su bs ta nt ia l weig ht to

go ve rn m en t em

pl oyers’ reas on ab le pr ed ic ti on s of di sr up ti on , ev en whe n th e sp eech

in vo lv ed is on a m at te r of p u b l i c c o n c ern .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng W at ers , 51 1 U.S. at 67 3
(p lu ral it y op in io n) ). 3

Fu rth er, a fir e de pa rtment, as a pu bl ic sa fet y or ga ni zat io n , “h a s a m or e

si gn ifi can t in te res t th an th e typic al go ve rn m en t em pl o ye r in reg ul at in g th e sp eech

act iv i t i e s o f it s em

pl oyees in or de r ‘to pr om ot e effi ci en cy , fo st er lo y al ty an d

ob ed ie nc e to su pe rio r of

fic ers , m ai nt ai n m or al e, an d in st il l pu bl ic co nf id en ce’ in it s

ab il it y .” Sh an ds

, 99 3 F.3 d at 13 44 (q uo ti ng Hug he s v. W hi tm er, 71 4 F.2 d 14 07

, 14 19
(8 th Ci r. 19 83 )). “ ‘W

he n li ve s m ay be at s t a k e i n a fir e, an es pi ri t de co rp s is

es se nt ia l to th e su cces s of th e joi nt en de av or .’ ” Id

. at 13 44 -4 5 (q uo ti ng Ja nu sa it is v.

W e reco gn iz e so m e Eig ht h Ci rcu it ca se s se em to supp or t Anz al du a’s arg um en t 3

th at em pl oyers m us t al way s pr es en t sp eci fic ev id en ce of act ua l di sr up ti on

. See, e.g ., Bel k v. Ci ty of Eld on , 22 8 F.3 d 87 2, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ W he re, as h e re, th e

em pl oyer ha s fail ed to de m on st rat e an y di sr up ti on , th ere i s n o b al an ci ng to be do ne

an d th e ev id en ti ary fai lu re is fat al to th e cl ai m of qu al ifi ed im m un it y .”). To th e ex te nt th es e cas es rep res en t a sp li t am on g pa ne ls in ou r ci rcu it

, we no te th at Anz al du a fai ls

to ci te

, an d we ha ve fai le d to lo cat e, an y cas e su pp or ti ng hi s argu m en t th at pr ed at es Germ an n v. Ci ty of Kan

. Ci ty, 77 6 F.2 d 76 1, 76 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (“ It is no t ne ces sa ry ‘for an em

pl oyer to al lo w ev en ts to un fo l d t o t h e e x t en t th at th e di sr up ti on of th e of fic e an d th e de st ru ct io n of wor ki ng rel at io ns hi ps is m an ife st be fo re ta ki ng act io n.’” (q uo ti ng Co nn ic k, 46 1 U.S. at 15 2 )); se e Mad er v. Uni te d St at es , 65 4 F.3 d 79 4, 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (“ [W] he n face d wit h co nf li ct in g pa ne l op in io ns , th e earl ie st

op in io n m

us t be fo ll owe d as it sh ou ld ha ve co nt ro ll e d th e su bs eq ue nt pa ne ls th at

crea te d th e co nf

li ct .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mi t te d) ). Mo reo ve r, we rece nt ly
ob se rv ed th at Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t pl aces in qu es ti on th e so un dn es s of th e cas es th at su gg es t em

pl oyers m

us t pr es en t sp eci fic ev id en ce of act ua l di sr up ti on

. See

Hem m in gh au s, 75 6 F.3 d at 11 12 n.1 0 (ci ti ng W at ers , 51 1 U.S. at 67 3; an d Co nn ic k,

46 1 U.S. at 15 2)

.

-1 6-Mi dd le bu ry Vol un te er Fi re Dep ’t, 60 7 F.2 d 17

, 2 6 ( 2 d C ir. 19 79 )). Thu s we gi ve

“ co ns i d e r a b le jud ic ia l de fere nc e” to th e de fen da nt s’ d et erm in at io n th at Anz al du a’s

“ sp eech ha d c au se d o r wou ld cau se di ss en si on an d d is ru pt io n.” Id. at 13 45

.

Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh we d o n o t r e qu ire act ua l ev id en ce of di sr up ti on in al l

cas es , it ex is ts he re. Thre e fir efi gh te rs su bm it te d de cl arat io ns sh owi ng th e di sr up ti on

Anz al du a’s em ai l cau se d. Lieu te na nt Barb aro t t o e x p l a in ed sh e was “ sh oc ke d bo th
by the co nt en ts of t he em ai l

. . . a nd th at [An zal du a] wo ul d se nd ” it . S he st at ed th e

em ai l “ an ge red ” m an y fir efi gh te rs , who wor rie d it wou ld “ m ak e [ t h e m] a pu bl ic

la ug hi ng st oc k.” Two ba tt al io n ch ie fs si m il arl y r e p or te d th e em ai l “ sh oc ke d an d

irr it at ed m an y fir efi gh te rs in th e Dis tri ct ” an d “ fo st ered di vi si on be twee n Anzal du a

an d hi s co -wo rk ers , an d be twee n t h e D is tri ct fir efi gh te rs an d [Ch ie f] Farwe ll .”

Anz al du a’s em ai l al so at ta ck ed Ch ie f Farw e l l p ers on al ly, accu si ng hi m of sh ut ti ng

do wn pu m

pe rs , pr io rit iz in g hi s bu si ne ss ov er hi s fir efi gh te rs ’ sa fet y , an d vi ol at in g th e

Fi re Dis tri ct ’s ve hi cl e us e an d cel l ph on e po li ci es

. See Bai le y , 45 1 F.3 d at 52 1 (“ The

le tt er accu se d Bai le y’s su pe rio rs of frau d an d le ga l an d et hi cal vi ol at io ns

. Su ch

accu sa ti on s ar e s u f

f ic ie nt ev id en ce of po te nt ia l wor kp la ce di sr up ti on .”). Thu s th is

is no t a cas e whe re th e Fi re Dis tri ct ha d no su pp or ti ng ev id en ce of di sr up ti on or rel ie d

on it s own “ [m ]ere al le ga ti on s of di sr up ti on .” Sex to n, 21 0 F.3 d at 91 2; se e al so

Co nn ic k, 46 1 U.S. at 15 1- 52 (g iv in g d e f eren ce to su pe rv is or ’s de te rm in at io n of

di sr up ti on be cau se “ [w]hen cl os e wor ki ng rel at io ns hi ps a re es se nt ia l to fu lfi ll in g

pu bl ic res po ns ib il it ie s, a wid e de gr ee of d e fere nc e to th e em pl oyer’s jud gm en t is

ap pr op ria te ”). Viewe d in li gh t of th e co ns id erab le de fere nc e we ow e th e Fi re

Dis tri ct ’s de te rm in at io n of act ua l or po te nt ia l di sr up ti on , we fin d th e de fen d a nt s

sa ti sf y th is st ep

.

3. Pi ck eri ng Bal an ci ng Test

W e co ns id er si x in te rrel at ed f act or s whe n ba la nc in g Anz al du a’s in te res t in

sp eech ag ai ns t th e Fi re Dist ric t’s in te res t in pr om ot in g th e effi ci en t op erat io n of th e

-1 7-fir e de pa rtment: ( 1 ) th e ne ed fo r ha rm on y in th e wor k pl ace; (2 ) whe th er th e

go ve rn m en t’s res po ns ib i li ti es req ui re a cl os e wor ki ng rel at io ns hi p; (3 ) th e ti m e,

m an ne r, an d pl ace of th e sp eech ; (4 ) th e co nt ex t in whi c h t he di sp ut e aro se ; (5 ) th e

de gr ee o f pu bl ic in te res t in th e sp eech ; an d (6 ) whe th er th e sp eech im pe de d th e

em pl oyee’s ab il it y to pe rfo rm hi s or he r du ti es

. Hem m in gh au s, 75 6 F.3 d at 11 13 -1 4.

“ [T]he Pi ck eri ng ba la nc e is fle xi bl e an d th e weig ht to be gi ve n t o a n y f act or va rie s

de pe nd in g on th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e cas e.” Germ an n v. Ci ty of Kan

. Ci ty, 77 6 F.2 d

76 1, 7 64 (8t h C ir. 1 98 5)

.

App lying th es e fact or s, we ag ree wit h t h e di st ric t co ur t th at “ th e ba la nc e weig hs in fav or of [th e] de fen da nt s.” R. Doc

. 63

, at 18

. Of cri ti cal im po rta nc e is th e

pr in ci pl e, di sc us se d ab ov e, th a t w e sh ow su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e bo th to th e Fi re

Dist ri ct ’ s de te rm in at io n th at Anz al du a’s em ai l “ ha d cau se d or wou ld cau se di ss en si on

an d di sr up ti on ,” an d to it s “ res po ns e to th e act ua l or pe rcei ve d di sr up ti on .” Sh an ds

, 99 3 F.2 d a t 1 3 4 5. As no te d, “ ‘[w] he n li ve s m ay be at st ak e in a fir e, an es pi ri t de

co rp s is es se nt ia l to th e su cces s of th e joi nt en de av or .’” I d. at 13 44 -4 5 (q uo ti ng

Ja nu sa it is

, 60 7 F.2 d at 26 ). Th e F ire Dis tri ct al so wor ke d wit h ot he r ne arb y fir e

de pa rtments an d ne ed ed th os e fir efi gh te rs to tru st Ch ie f Farwe ll

. Th u s w e fin d th e

di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y

co nc lu de d “ Mays an d Lee reas on ab ly bel ie ve d [An zal du a’s]

sp eech was an at te m

pt to un de rm in e Farwe ll ’s au th or it y an d ha d le d, or wou ld le ad

,
to di sr up ti on in th e d ep art m en t.” R. Do c. 63 , at 1 8.

Mo reo ve r, it is cl ear Anz al du a em ai le d Hol la nd jus t da y s aft er be in g pl aced on

wha t he cl ai m s was an un jus ti fie d su sp en si on an d th at Anz al du a’s rel at io ns hi p wit h

Ch ie f Farwe ll ha d b e e n co nt en ti ou s fo r m on th s. See Co nn ic k, 46 1 U.S. at 15 3
(“ W he n emp l oyee sp eech

. . . ari se s fro m an em pl oym en t di sp ut e[,]

. . . ad di ti on al
weig ht m us t b e g iv en to th e su pe rv is or ’s vi ew th at th e em pl oyee ha s t hr eat en ed th e

au th or i t y o f t h e em

pl oyer to ru n th e of

fic e.”). Alt ho ug h th ere is no su gg es ti on

Anz al du a em ai le d Hol la nd du rin g wor k ho ur s or fro m th e fir e st at io n, se e id

. (fi nd in g

em pl oyee’s pr ep ari ng an d di st rib ut in g qu es ti on na ire at of fic e su pp or te d em

pl oyer’s

-1 8-co nc lu si on th at sp eech wou ld en da ng er of fic e fu nc ti on in g)

, Anz al du a di d go ou ts id e

th e ch ai n of co m

m an d whe n he se cret ly em ai le d a rep or te r. Fi re Dis tri ct em pl oyees

reac te d n eg at iv el y

to th is ex po su re.

Fu rth er, th e de gr e e o f p u bl ic in te res t in Anz al du a’s st at em en ts was m in im al

. The Fi re Dis tri ct in st it ut ed m in im um m an ni ng pr oc ed ur es du e to bu dg et co ns tra in ts

a n d d e c id ed to ru n on e pu m pe r so it co ul d op erat e two am bu la nc es

. The re i s n o

ev id en ce th is ch oi ce affe ct ed th e Fi re Dis tri ct ’s pr ov is io n of se rv ic es

. The Fi re

Dis tri ct was in th e pr oc es s of te st in g a n d p u r c h a si ng ne w SCBAs

. And ne it he r of

th es e is su es was “ at th e cen te r of pu bl ic de ba te .” Sh an ds

, 9 9 3 F

. 2 d a t 1 34 6. The

pu rch as e of ne w ve hi cl es ha d be en di sc us se d at a pu bl ic Bo ard m eet in g, an d th e

ex pi red na rco ti cs li cen se s si m il arl y ha d be en di sc us se d a pu bl ic m eet in g in Je ffer so n

C i t y. The pu bl ic ha d ev en le ss in te res t in Anz al du a’s at ta ck on Ch ie f Farwe ll fo r

maki ng pe rm it te d us e of hi s wor k ve hi cl e an d in hi s co m pl ai nt ab ou t n o t b e i n g

al lo wed un io n rep res en ta ti on , whi ch

, whi le li te ral ly tru e, was m is le ad in g be cau se he

ha d be en of

fere d an d in fact acce pt ed th e he lp of a un io n rep res en ta ti ve

. Alt ho ug h

th ere is no su gg es ti on Anz al du a’s em ai l im pe de d hi s ab il it y to pe rfo rm hi s du ti es as

a pa ram ed ic an d fir efi gh te r, th is fact or do es no t ou twei gh th e ot he rs

. See id

. (s ta ti ng

th at “ th is fact or is no t de te rm in at iv e” an d fin di ng Pi ck eri ng fact or s fav or ed em pl oyer

ev en th ou gh th ere was no ev id en ce em pl oyees’ job pe rfo rm an ce ha d be en hi nd ered ).

In su m , we fin d th e Pi ck eri ng fact or s fav or th e de fen da nt s an d th us ag ree wit h

th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e de fen da nt s are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th ey

di d n ot vi ol at e Anz al du a’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh t t o fr ee s pe ech

.

B. Ru le 56 (d ) Mo ti on

W e ne xt ad dr es s Anzal du a’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t cou rt erre d in de nyin g

hi s Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io n. Anz al d u a arg ue s th e de fen da nt s’ qu al ifi ed im m un it y

arg um en t de pe nd ed on th ei r as se r t i o n t h a t he m ad e fal se st at em en ts in th e Hol la nd

-1 9-em ai l an d t hu s t ha t i t was ess en ti al for hi m to sh ow t ho se st at em en ts were tru e. He

arg ue s he was un ab le to pr ov e hi s st at em en ts ’ ve raci ty be cau se th e cas e m an ag em en t

or de r pr ev en te d hi m fro m co nd uc ti ng di sc ov ery be fo re res po nd in g to th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. He su gg es ts th at if he ha d be en al lo wed to de po se th e de fen da nt s’

wit ne ss es an d d is co ve r do cu m en ts in th e d efen da nt s’ po ss es si on —h e req ue st ed th e

di st ric t co ur t al lo w hi m an ad di ti on al 4 to 5 m on th s of di sc ov ery an d 21 da y s on to p

of th at to res po nd to th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n— th en he co ul d ha ve pr ov en hi s

st at em en ts ’ tru th

.

W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io n fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Tob en

v. Bri dg es to ne Ret ai l Ope rat io ns , LLC, 75 1 F.3 d 88 8, 89 4 (8 t h Ci r. 20 14 ). Und er

Ru le 56 (d ), a co ur t m ay de fer co ns id eri ng a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n or al lo w ti m e

fo r d i sc ov ery “ [i]f a no nm ov an t sh ows by affi da vi t or de cl arat io n th at

, fo r sp eci fic

reas on s, it can no t pr es en t fact s es se nt ia l to jus ti fy i t s op po si ti on .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

56 (d ). Howev er, Ru le 56 “ do es no t req ui re tri al co u r t s t o a l lo w pa rti es to co nd uc t

di sc ov ery be fo re en te rin g su m m ary jud gm en t.” Uni te d S t a te s ex rel

. Sm al l Bu s.

Adm in

. v. Lig ht

, 76 6 F.2 d 39 4, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (p er cu ria m ). Thu s di st ric t co ur ts

po ss es s “ wid e di sc ret io n i n d en y in g” Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io ns

. Tob en , 7 51 F.3 d at 89 5.

“ [A] di st ric t co ur t’s [Ru le 56 (d )] di sc ret i on is fu rth er res tri ct ed whe n a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y is at is su e.” Jo ne s v. Ci ty & Cn ty. of

Den ve r, Co lo

., 85 4 F.2 d 12 06

, 12 11 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 88 ) (ci ti ng Mar ti n v. Mal ho y t, 83 0

F.2 d 23 7, 25 6- 57 (D.C

. Ci r. 19 87 )). Thi s res tri ct io n refl ect s th e co nc ern “ th at

in su bs ta nt ia l cl ai m s ag ai ns t go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls be res ol ve d pr io r to di sc ov ery an d

on su m m ary jud gm en t if po ss ib l e

. ” And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 64 0 n.2
(1 98 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Ja ni s v. Bi es he uv el

, 42 8 F.3 d 79 5,

80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Qua li fie d im m un it y is an im m

un it y fro m su it

, no t si m

pl y fro m

li ab il it y .”).

It i s no t eno ug h for a pa rty to “ se t fort h so m e fact s sh e ‘hop e[s ] to eli ci t fr om

fu rth er di sc ov ery. ’” Tob en , 75 1 F.3 d at 89 5 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Cal

. ex

-2 0-rel

. Cal

. Dep ’t of Tox ic Su bs

. Co nt ro l v. Cam p b e l l

, 1 3 8 F .3d 77 2, 77 9 (9 th Ci r.

19 98 )). And “ th e m ere as se rti on th at ev id en ce su pp or t i n g a pa rty’ s al le ga ti on is in

th e op po si ng pa rty’ s ha nd s is in su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy a de ni al of a su m m ary jud gm en t

m ot io n on [Ru le 56 (d )] gro un ds .” Jo ne s, 8 54 F.2 d at 12 11

. In st ead

, th e pa rty m us t

“ sh ow[ ] ‘tha t th e fact s so u g h t e xi st .’ ” Tob en , 75 1 F.3 d at 89 5 (q uo ti ng Cam pb el l,

13 8 F.3d at 77 9) ; see al so Ja ni s, 42 8 F.3 d at 80 0 (“ ‘A pa rty in vo ki ng [Ru le 56 (d )’s]

pr ot ect io ns m

us t do so in go od fai th by aff irmativ el y de m on st rat in g why h e can no t

res po nd to a m ov an t’s affi da vi ts as ot he rwis e req ui red

. . . an d ho w po st po ne m en t of

a ru li ng on th e m ot io n wil l en ab le hi m , by di sc ov ery or ot he r m ean s, to reb ut th e

m ov an t’s sh owi ng of th e ab se nc e of a ge nu i ne is su e of fact .’ ” (q uo ti ng W il li am

Po ul try Co. v . Mo rto n- Nor wich Pro ds ., Inc ., 52 0 F .2d 28 9, 2 97 (8t h C ir. 1 97 5) )).

He re, we fin d un av ai li ng Anz al du a’s arg um en t th at he ne ed ed ad di ti on al

di sc ov ery to res po nd to th e do cu m en ts an d de cl arat io ns th e de fen da nt s su bm it te d in

su pp or t of th ei r su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Fi rs t, we no te t h a t A n z a l d ua fai le d to

sh ow why it was es se nt ia l for th e co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er each of hi s st at em en ts

w a s tru e or no t. Seco nd

, we no te th at whi le th e cas e m an ag em en t or d e r d i d n o t

req ui re in it ia l di sc lo su res be co m pl et ed un ti l aft er res ol ut io n of th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, ne it he r di d it pr oh ib it Anz al du a fro m co nd uc ti ng di sc ov ery. Thi rd

,

e v e n as su m in g th e tru th or fal si ty of Anz al du a’s st at em en ts was es se nt ia l to hi s

de fen se , Anz al du a fai ls to sh ow he wou ld be ne fit fro m fu rth er di sc ov ery be cau se he

can no t sh ow fact s ex is t th at wou ld pr ov e th e ve raci ty of hi s st at em en ts in th e Hol la nd

em ai l. Tha t is to sa y , he can no t st at e wit h sp eci fic it y wha t ev id en ce fu rth er di sc ov ery

wou ld un co ve r. His Ru le 56 (d ) affi da vi t si mp l y a ss ert ed th at if he co ul d de po se

wit ne ss es an d di sc ov er do cu m en ts

, th en he co ul d pr ov e hi s st at em en ts were tru e an d

th us th at th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. Su ch an un sp ec i fic

as se rti on is in su ffi ci en t un de r Ru le 56 (d ). See Duf fy v. W ol le

, 12 3 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 41
( 8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ ‘Rul e 56 ([d ]) do es no t co nd on e a fis hi ng ex pe di ti on ’ whe re a pl ai nt iff m erel y h o p e s t o un co ve r so m e po ss ib le ev id en ce of a co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n.” (q uo ti ng Gard ne r v. Howar d

, 10 9 F.3 d 42 7, 43 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ))),

-2 1-ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by To r g e rs on v. Ci ty o f Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). W e fi nd th e d is tri ct co ur t di d no t ab us e it s wid e di sc ret io n in

de nyin g An zal du a’s Ru le 56 (d ) m ot io n.

C. Dis m is sa l o f Non -Mo vi ng Fir e Dis tri ct

Bec au se th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s were en t i t l e d t o qu al ifi ed im m un it y , th e

d i s t r i ct co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Fi re Dis tri ct al th ou g h i t

fai le d to joi n th e su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. On ce t he di st ric t co ur t d et erm in ed no

Fi rs t Am en dm en t vi ol at io n ha d oc cu rred

, it was pr op er fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to en te r

su m m ary jud gm en t fo r al l de fen da nt s faci ng id en ti cal Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s. See

Mad ewel l v . Down s, 6 8 F .3d 10 30 , 10 50 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

III. Co un ts 3 an d 4 : SC A and MCTA Cl ai m s

A. SCA Cla im s

W e ne xt ad dr es s Anz al du a’s arg um en t th at it was erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

de ny hi m le av e to am en d hi s SCA cl ai m s. An z a l d u a a l le ge d in hi s pr op os ed fir st

am en de d co m

pl ai nt th at Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge , act in g to ge th er or al on e, acce ss ed

hi s Gm ai l acco un t th ro ug h Gm ai l’s se rv er an d: (1 ) ob ta in ed th e em ai l Anz al du a ha d

pr ep ared bu t n ot sen t t o Dr. Tan , wh ic h at th e ti m e was st or ed on Gm ai l’s s erv er as

a dr aft m es sa ge , an d se nt th e em ai l to Dr. Tan ; and (2 ) ob ta in ed th e em ai l Anzal du a

ha d se n t t o H ol la nd

, whi ch at th e ti m e was st or ed on Gm ai l’s se rv er as a se nt

m es sa ge , an d fo rward ed th e em ai l to Ch ie f Farwe ll

. Anz al du a fu rth er al le ge d Ch ie f

Farwe ll an d W el ge de le te d th e Dr. Tan an d Hol la n d e mai ls aft er th ey se nt th em

. Anz al du a al le ge d he be li ev ed Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge acce ss ed hi s Gm ai l acco un t

be cau se he tra ced acce ss of th e ac c o u n t t o an IP ad dr es s at or ne ar Ch ie f Farwe ll ’s

res ta ur an t, whe re W el ge wor ke d. Anz al du a fu rth er ex pl ai ne d ho w Ch ie f Farwe ll an d

W el ge all eg ed ly acces se d h is acco un t:

-2 2-W hi le Defen da nt W el ge an d Anz al du a were in a ro m an ti c rel at io ns hi p,

on on e oc cas io n pri or

to th e te rm in at io n of tha t rela ti on sh ip

, Anz al du a

ga ve Defen da nt W el ge hi s Gm ai l pas swo rd so th at sh e co ul d e m ai l h is

res um e on hi s beh al f to pr os pe ct iv e em pl oyers. Anz al du a di d no t gi ve Defen da nt W el ge ge ne ral pe rm is si on to acce ss hi s pe rs on al Gm ai l

acco un t an d di d no t real iz e sh e ha d co nt in ue d to ac c e s s h i s pe rs on al

Gm ai l acco un t un ti l he in ve st ig at ed ho w hi s pe rs on al em ai ls were be in g

pr ov id ed t o th e Fi re Dis tri ct

. [An zal du a] an d Defen da nt W el ge ’s

ro m an ti c rel at io ns hi p en de d in Ju ly of 20 11 an d Anz al du a di d no t kn ow,

no r di d he au th or iz e Defen da nt W el ge to acce ss h i s p e r s o na l Gm ai l

acco un t at an y ti m e be fo re or aft er th at rel at io ns hi p en de d, ex cep t to

se nd th e res um es on hi s b eh al f as set for th ab ov e.

Fi rs t Am en de d C om

pl ai nt , R. Doc. 2 9- 1, at ¶ 50

.

Fi nd in g Anz al du a’s pr op os ed fir st am en de d com pl ai nt fai le d to st at e an SCA

cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed le av e to am en d on th e gr ou nd th at am en dm en t wou ld

be fu ti le

. See Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Ro op v. Hy po gu ard USA, In c., 55 9 F.3 d 81 8, 82 2
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ Fu ti li ty is a va li d ba si s fo r de nyin g le av e to am en d.” ). The di st ric t

co ur t reas on ed th at “t h e al le ge d im pr op er us e of [An zal du a’s] in fo rm at io n was no t

a SCA v io la ti on , bec au se [Anz al du a] gav e W el ge acce ss to hi s Gm ai l acco un t.” R.

Doc . 49 , at 1 9.

On ap pe al

, Anz al du a arg ue s he su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d un au th or iz ed acce ss of hi s

Gm ai l acco un t. Alt ho ug h we a gr ee wit h Anz al du a th at hi s pr op os ed fir st am en de d

co m pl ai nt su ffi cie ntl y al le ge d unau th or iz ed acce ss , se e Ro op , 55 9 F.3 d at 82 2 (s ta ti ng

th at we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fu ti li ty de te rm in at i o n de no vo an d it s de ni al of

le av e to am en d fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n)

, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t on th e al te rn at iv e

gr ou nd th at am en dm en t wou ld be fu ti le be cau se ne it he r of Anz al du a’s em ai ls was in

“ el ect ro ni c st or ag e” wit hi n th e m ean in g o f t he SCA. See In te rs ta te Bak eri es Co rp

.

v. One Bea co n In s. Co

., 68 6 F.3 d 53 9, 54 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ ‘W e m ay affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t on an y ba si s di sc lo se d in th e reco rd

, whe th er or no t th e

-2 3-di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h or ev en ad dr es se d th at gr ou nd .’ ” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) (q uo ti ng W arn er Bro s. Ent m ’t, In c . v . X One X P ro ds ., 6 44 F.3 d 58 4, 59 1
(8 th Cir . 20 11 ))).

The SCA pr ov id es a ci vi l cau se of act io n ag ai ns t an y on e who “ (1 ) in te nt io na ll y

acce ss es wit ho ut au th or iz at io n a faci li ty th ro ug h whi ch an el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n

se rv ic e is pr ov id ed ; or (2 ) in te nt io na ll y ex ceed s an au th or iz at io n t o a cces s th at

faci li ty; an d th ereb y ob ta in s, al te rs , or pr ev en ts au th or iz ed acce ss to a wir e o r

el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at i o n whi le it is in el ect ro ni c st or ag e.” 18 U.S.C. § 27 01 ; id

. § 27 07 (p ro vi di ng fo r ci vi l cau se of act io n)

. Co nt rary to th e di st ric t co ur t, we be li ev e

Anz al du a’s pr op os ed f

i r st am en de d co m

pl ai nt su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d th at Ch ie f

Farwe ll ’s an d W el ge ’s acce ss was wit ho ut au th or iz at io n or ex ceed ed au th or iz at io n.

Tak in g A n z a l d ua ’s al le ga ti on s as tru e, Anz al du a ga ve W el ge hi s pa ss wor d so sh e

co ul d acce ss hi s Gm ai l a c c o u n t o n e ti m e an d fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of se nd in g

res um es on hi s be ha lf. Giv en th es e fac ts , we co nc lu de Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge at

le as t exce ed ed th e ex pr es sl y li m it ed au th or iz at io n Anz al du a ga ve W el ge whe n th ey

acce ss ed Anz al du a’s Gm ai l acco un t o ve r a y ear l at er fo r who ll y di ffer en t pu rp os es

. See The of

el v. Fare y -J on es , 35 9 F

. 3 d 10 66

, 10 72 (9 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (rea so ni ng th at

pr in ci pl es of co m

m on la w tre sp as s g ui de sco pe of a cces s u nd er SCA); Rest at em en t (Sec on d) of Tort s § 16 8 (1 96 5) (“ A co nd it io na l or r e s t r i ct ed co ns en t to en te r la nd

crea te s a pr iv il eg e to do so on ly in s o fa r as th e co nd it io n or res tri ct io n is co m pl ie d

wit h.” ); cf. Jo hn so n v. U.S. Ban co rp Bro ad -Bas ed Ch an ge in Co nt ro l Sev eran ce Pay

Pro gr am , 4 24 F.3 d 73 4, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (i nt erp ret in g e m pl oym en t co nt ract th at

fo rb ad e un au th or iz ed acc es s an d re as oni ng tha t “ the dis tri ct co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at

‘Joh ns on was au th or iz ed to acce ss th e fil es ,’ be cau se ‘not hi ng pr ev en te d her acce ss

wha ts oe ve r,’ m is ta ke nl y eq ua te d ab il it y to acce ss a fil e wit h au th or iz at io n to acce ss

th e fil e”). Thi s c on cl us io n is su pp or te d by th e fact th at Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge

de le te d t h e Dr. Tan an d Hol la nd em ai ls aft er th ey se nt th em , whi ch su gg es ts th ey

kn ew th ey

lac ke d a ut ho riz at io n.

-2 4-Eve n if Anz al du a su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d un au th or iz ed a c ces s, th ou gh

, th e SCA

al so req ui red hi m to al le ge th at th e em ai ls were in “ el ect ro ni c st or ag e.” Thi s he fai le d

to do

. See W il li am Je rem y Ro bi so n, N ot e, Free at W ha t Co st ? : Cl ou d Co m pu ti ng

Pri va cy Und er th e St or e d C o mm un ic at io ns Act, 98 Geo

. L.J. 11 95

, 12 06 (2 01 0)
(“ [The ‘elect ro ni c st or ag e’] req ui rem en t is c om m on ly m is un de rs to od be cau se th e

st at ut or y de fin it io n of ‘elect ro ni c st or ag e’ is m uc h na rr ow er tha n its nam e su gg es ts .”);

se e al so Orin S. Kerr, A U s e r ’s Gui de to th e St or ed Co m m un ic at io ns Act, an d A
Leg is la to r’s Gui de to Am en di ng It, 72 Geo

. W as h. L. Rev

. 12 08

, 12 1 4 ( 2 0 04 )
(“ [T]here are m an y pr ob le m s of In te rn et pr iv acy th at th e SCA do es no t ad dr es s. The

SCA is no t a c a t c h

- a l l st at ut e de si gn ed to pr ot ect th e pr iv acy of st or ed In te rn et

co m m un ic at io ns ; in st ead it is na rro wly ta il or ed to pr ov id e a s e t of Fo ur th

A m en dm en t- lik e prot ect io ns fo r co m pu te r ne two rk s.”)

. Und er th e st at ut e, “ el ect ro nic

st or ag e” m ean s (1 ) “ an y te m po rary, in te rm ed i a t e s to rag e of a wire or el ect ro ni c

co m m un ic at io n in ci de nt al to th e el ect ro ni c tra ns m is si on th ereo f,” or (2 ) “ an y st or ag e

of su ch co m

m un ic at io n by an el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n se r v ic e fo r pu rp os es of

ba ck up pro te ct io n o f su ch co m m un ic at io n.” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 0( 17 ). 4 5

W e reco gn iz e au th or it ie s are di vi de d on whe th er th es e two d e f i n i ti on al 4

pr ov is io ns m

us t be read to ge th er or ap art

. Co m pa re Je nn in gs v. Je nn in gs , 73 6 S.E.2d

24 2, 24 7- 48 (S.C. 20 12 ) (Toa l, C.J

., co nc ur rin g in res ul t ) ( t o ge th er); wit h The of el

, 35 9 F.3 d at 10 75 -7 6 (ap art ). Alt ho ug h we pr es en t th e pr ov is io ns in th e di sju nc ti ve , in pa rt be cau se th at is ho w t h e pa rti es arg ue d th em , we ex pr es s no op in io n on th is
is su e.

It i s n ot alwa y s easy to sq ua re the de cad es -o ld SCA wit h t he cu rren t s ta te of

5

em ai l tech no lo gy. One co m m en ta to r ha s ob se rv ed th at th e de fin it io n of “ el ect ro ni c

st or ag e” “ is be tt er un de rs to od in li gh t of th e e-m ai l de li ve ry syste m in pl ace at th e ti m e [o f th e SCA’s en act m en t in th e m id -1 9 8 0 s ], whi ch req ui red m ul ti pl e se rv ic e

pr ov id ers to st or e co m

m un ic at io ns br i efl y be fo re fo rward in g th em on to th ei r ne xt de st i na ti on or whi le awai ti ng do wnl oa d by th e reci pi en t.” Ro bi so n, Free at W ha t
Co st ?

, 98 Geo

. L.J. at 12 06

. By co nt ras t, to da y ’s pr ed o mi n a n t web -b as ed em ai l

se rv ic es , li ke Gm ai l, al lo w us ers to “ac c e s s th ei r em ai l ov er th e web fro m an y

co m pu te r, an d [u s e r s ] do no t au to m at ic al ly do wnl oa d th ei r m es sa ge s to th ei r own

-2 5-Anz al du a fir st cl ai m s hi s dr aft em ai l t o D r

. Tan was in “ te m po rary,

in te rm ed ia te st or ag e.” W hi le th is arg um en t ap pe al s to ou r ev eryday un de rs ta nd in g

of a “ dr aft ,” it fai ls to m eet th e st at ut or y de fin it io n. Ev en ass um in g a n u ns en t d raft

em ai l qu al ifi es as an e l ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n, se e 28 U.S.C. § 25 10 (1 2)
(“ ‘[E] le ct ro ni c co m

m un ic at io n’ m ean s any tr an sf er of si gn s, si gn al s, writ in g, im ag es ,

so un ds

, da ta

, or in te ll ig en ce of an y na t u r e t ra ns mit te d in who le or in pa rt

. . . .”)
(em ph as is ad de d)

, be cau se th e em ai l ha d no t b een se nt

, it s st or ag e on th e Gm ai l

se rv er was no t “ te m

po rary, in te r med ia te ,” an d “ in ci de nt al to th e el ect ro ni c

tra ns mi ss io n th ereo f.” 18 U.S.C. § 25 10 (1 7) (A); se e Uni te d St at es v. Co un ci lm an , 41 8 F.3 d 67

, 81 (1 st Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (“ The fir st cat eg or y

. . . refe rs to te m po rary

st or ag e, su ch as wh en a m es sa ge si ts in an e-m ai l u se r’s m ai lb ox aft er t ran sm is si on

b u t b e f or e th e us er ha s ret rie ve d th e m es sa ge fro m th e m ai l se rv er.”) ; In r e

Do u b l e c li ck In c. Pri va cy Lit ig

., 15 4 F. Su pp

. 2d 49 7, 51 2 (S.D.N.Y. 20 01 ) (“ [The
SCA] on ly pr ot ect s el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns st or ed ‘for a l im it ed ti m e’ in th e

‘m id dl e’ of a tra ns m is si on , i.e. whe n an el ect ro nic co m m uni ca tio n se rv ic e te m

po rari ly

st or es a co m

m un ic at io n wh il e wai ti ng to de li ve r it .”).

Anz al du a ne xt cl ai m s hi s se n t H o l l an d em ai l was st or ed “ fo r pu rp os es of

ba ck up pr ot ect io n.” Co ur ts m os t of te n di s c u s s th e ba ck up pr ot ect io n pr ov is io n as 6

co m pu t ers as no n- web -b as ed em ai l se rv ic e us ers do

. In st ead

, if [web -b as ed ] us ers

sa ve a m es sa ge , th ey ge ne ral ly le av e it on th e [web -b as ed em ai l] se rv er an d ret ur n to [th e em ai l se rv ic e] vi a th e web to acce ss it on su bs eq ue nt oc cas io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Weave r, 63 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 7 69 , 77 2 (C .D. Ill . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Of co ur se , web -b as ed em ai l us ers m ay st il l do wnl oa d em ai ls to th ei r co m pu te rs th ro ug h em ai l

c l i e n t p r o gr am s, whi ch co m pl ic at es th e pi ct ur e. See Ch en g v. Ro m o, 20 13 W L
68 14 69 1, at *4 -5 (D. Mas s. Dec . 20 , 20 13 ) (s li p c op y ).

Anz al du a do es no t arg ue th at hi s dr aft em ai l was st or ed fo r ba ck up pr ot ect io n 6

pu rp os es or t ha t h is se nt em ai l was in t em po rary, int erm ed ia te st or ag e, an d we n ot e he di d no t al le ge th e se nt em ai l was un op en ed whe n Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge al le ge dl y ob ta in ed it . Thu s we d ecl in e to co ns id er t he se arg um en ts

.

-2 6-it pe rta in s to co pi es of op en ed em ai ls th at rem ai n on em ai l se rv ers

. A pr in ci pa l cas e

in th e area —an d th e cas e Anz al du a rel ie s on —i s The of el

, whe r e th e Nin th Ci rcu it

he ld th at su ch co pi es wou ld be de em ed st or ed fo r ba ck up pr ot ect io n pu rp os es un ti l

“ th e un de rlyin g m es sa ge

. . . ex pi red in t h e n o r mal co ur se ” be cau se “ [a]n ob vi ou s

pu rp os e fo r st or in g a m es sa ge on an [in te rn et se rv ic e pr ov id er’s (“ ISP” )] se rv er aft er

de li ve ry [fro m th e se rv er to th e us er] i s to pr ov id e a se co nd co p y of th e m es sa ge in

th e ev en t th at th e us er ne ed s to do wnl oa d i t ag ai n— if, fo r ex am pl e, th e m es sa ge is

acci de nt al ly erase d fr om

th e u se r’s own co m

pu te r.” 3 59 F.3d at 1 07 5- 76

.

Alt ho ug h se ve ral co ur ts ha ve fo ll owe d The of el

, se e, e.g ., Pu re Po wer Bo ot

Cam p v. W arri or Fi tn e s s B o o t Cam p, 58 7 F. Su pp

. 2d 54 8, 55 5 (S.D.N.Y. 20 08 )
(ci ti ng cas es ); Bai le y v. Bai le y , No 07 -1 16 72 , 2 00 8 W L 3 24 15 6, at *6 (E.D. M ic h.

Fe b

. 6

, 20 08 ), th e de ci si on ha s be en su bjec t to cri ti ci sm

. See Uni te d St at es v.

W ars ha k, 63 1 F.3 d 26 6, 29 1 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (n ot in g cri ti ci sm ); Kerr, A Use r’s Gui de

, 72 Geo

. W as h. L Rev

. at 12 17 (“ [T]he Nin th Ci rcu it ’s an al y si s in The of el is qu it e

im pl au si bl e an d h ard to sq ua re wi th th e st at ut or y tex t.”)

. 7

S o me c a s e s op en ly di sa gr ee wit h The of el ’s reas on in g. See Lazet te v.

Kul m at y ck i, 94 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 74 8, 75 8 & n.1 3 (N.D. Ohi o 20 13 ) (“ E-m ai ls whi ch an

K e r r fu rth er ex pl ai ne d: “ An un de rs ta nd in g of th e st ru ct ur e of th e SC A 7

in di cat es th at th e ba ck up pr ov is io n of th e de fin it io n of el ect ro ni c st or ag e ex is ts on ly

to en su re t ha t t he go ve rn m en t [o r th e d efen da nt s, as rel ev an t h ere,] can no t m ak e an

en d- ru n a ro un d t he pri va cy -p ro te ct in g [ele ct ro ni c co m m un ic at io n serv ic e (“ ECS”)]

ru le s by at te m

pt in g to acce ss ba ck up co pi es of un op en ed e-m ai ls m ad e by th e ISP fo r it s ad m in is tra ti ve pu rp os es

. ISPs reg ul arl y ge ne rat e b a ck up co pi es of th ei r se rv ers in th e ev en t of a se rv er cras h or ot he r pr ob le m , an d th ey of te n st or e th es e co pi es fo r th e lo ng te rm

. Sect io n 25 10 (1 7) (B) pr ov id es th at ba ck up co pi es of un op en ed e-m ai ls

a r e pr ot ect ed by th e ECS ru le s ev en th ou gh th ey are no t th em se lv es in ci de nt t o

tra ns m is si on ; wit ho ut th is pr ov is io n, co pi es of un op en ed e-m ai ls ge ne rat ed b y th is

un iv ers al ISP pr act ic e wou ld be un pr ot ect ed by th e SCA.” Kerr, A Use r’s Gui de

, 72
Geo . W as h. L. Rev . at 1 21 7 n .61 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-2 7-in te nd ed reci pi en t ha s op en ed m ay , w h e n n o t de le te d, be ‘sto red ,’ in co m m on

pa rla nc e. Bu t in li gh t of t he res tri ct io n o f ‘sto rag e’ in [th e SCA] so le ly fo r ‘back up

pr ot ect io n,’ e-m ai ls whi ch th e in te nd ed reci pi en t ha s op en ed

, bu t no t de le te d (an d

th us whi ch rem ai n av ai la bl e fo r la te r re-o pe ni ng ) are no t be in g ke pt ‘for th e pu rp os es

of ba ck up pr ot ect io n.’”); Je nn in gs v. Je nn in gs , 73 6 S.E.2d 24 2, 24 5 (S.C. 20 12 ) (“ W e

de cl in e to ho ld th at ret ai ni ng an op en ed em ai l co ns ti tu te s st or in g it fo r ba ck up

pr ot ect io n un de r th e [SCA]. The or di na ry m ean in g of th e wor d ‘back up ’ is ‘one th at

se rv es as a su bs ti tu te or su pp or t.’ Thu s, Co ng res s’s us e of ‘back up ’ ne ces sa r il y

pr es up po se s th e ex is te nc e of an ot he r co py to whi ch th is e-m ai l wou ld se r v e as a

su bs ti tu te or su pp or t. W e se e no reas on to de vi at e fro m th e pl ai n, ev eryday m ean in g

of th e wor d ‘back up ,’ an d co nc lu de th at as th e si ng le co py o f t h e c om m un ic at io n,

Je nn in gs ’ e-m ai ls co ul d no t ha ve be en st or ed fo r ba ck up pr ot ect io n.” (c it at io n

o m i t t e d ) ( q u o t i n g M e r r i a m

- W e b s t e r D i c t i o n a r y , ht tp :/ /www.m erri am -web st er.co m /d ic ti on ary/ba ck up )).

Oth er au th or it ie s di sp ut e The of el by in si st in g th at th e two d e fin it io na l

p ro vi si on s in se ct io n 25 10 (1 7) be read to ge th er. See Je nn in gs , 73 6 S.E.2d at 2 4 8
(Toa l, C.J

., co nc ur rin g in res ul t) ( “[E ]l e ct ro ni c st or ag e refe rs on ly to te m po rary

st or ag e, m ad e in th e co ur se of tra ns m is si on , by an [elect ro ni c se rv ic e co m m un ic at io n]

pr ov id er, an d to ba ck up s of su ch in te rm ed ia te co m m un ic at i o n s

. ” ) ; Kerr, A Use r’s

Gui de

, 72 G e o

. Wa s h

. L. Rev

. at 12 14 (“ [The SCA] de fin es ‘elect ro ni c st or ag e’ as ‘any te m po rary, in te rm ed ia te st or ag e of a wire or el ect ro nic co m m uni ca tio n inc ident al

to th e el ect ro ni c tra ns m is si on t h e reo f,’ pl us an y ba ck up co pi es of fil es in su ch

te m po rary sto rag e.” (fo ot no te om it te d) (qu ot in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 25 10 (1 7) )).

S t il l ot he r cas es di st in gu is h The of el on th e gr ou nd th at it ad dr e s s e d

no n- web -b as ed em ai l t ech no lo gy:

[The of el ] he ld th at on ce a us er rece iv es an em ai l, an y ve rs io n on th e ISP’s se rv er is a co py th at is be in g st o r e d f o r b ack up un ti l th e us er’s

-2 8-ve rs io n ex pi res in th e no rm al co ur se

. [The of el ] rel ie s on th e as su m

pt io n th at us ers do wnl oa d em ai ls fro m an ISP’s se rv er to th ei r own co m pu te rs

. Tha t is ho w m an y em ai l syste m s wor k, bu t a Hot m ai l acc o un t is
web -b as ed an d rem ot e. Hot m ai l us ers can acce ss t h e i r e m ai l ov er th e web fro m an y co m

pu te r, an d t he y

do no t aut om at ic al ly do wnl oa d th ei r

m es sa ge s to th ei r own co m pu te rs as no n- web -b as ed em ai l se rv ic e us ers do

. In st ead

, if Hot m ai l us ers sa ve a m es sa ge , th ey ge ne ral ly le av e it on th e Hot m ai l se rv er an d ret ur n to Hot m ai l vi a th e web t o a c c es s it on

s u b s e qu en t oc cas io ns

. The di st in ct io n be twee n web -b as ed em ai l an d

ot he r em ai l s y st em s m ak es Theo fel lar ge ly ina pp li cab le he re.

Uni te d St at es v. W eav er, 63 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 76 9, 77 2 (C.D. Ill

. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s, ci ta ti on s, an d foo tn ot e om it te d) ; see als o Cris pi n v. Ch ris ti an Aud ig ie r, In c.,

71 7 F. Su pp

. 2d 96 5, 98 4- 85 (C.D. Cal

. 20 10 ) (ack no wled gi ng th at W eav er an d

The of el are no t in co ns is te nt be cau se W eav er “ co nf ro nt ed a si tu at io n no t prev io us ly

co ns id ered by” The of

el ); bu t se e Ch en g v. Ro m o, 20 13 W L 68 14 69 1, at *5 (D. Mas s.

Dec. 20

, 20 13 ) (s li p co py) (n ot in g th at un de r W eav er’s reas on in g a de fen da nt ’s le ga l

li ab il it y fo r acce ss in g a pl ai nt iff ’s em ai ls “ tu rn [s ] on wha t pi ece of so ftwa re (i.e

., web

br ows er vs

. em ai l cl ie nt ) [th e pl ai nt iff ] ha pp en ed to us e to acce ss hi s em ai l acco un t” );

Je nn in gs , 73 6 S.E.2d at 24 6- 47 (Toa l, C.J

., co nc ur rin g in r e s u l t ) (s am e). If we

ad op te d th e reas on in g of an y of th e cas es cri ti ci zi ng The of el

, we li ke ly wou ld no t fin d

th at th e Hol la nd em ai l was st or ed for ba ck up pro te ct io n p ur

po se s.

Ult im at el y , ho wev er, we ne ed no t de ci de whe th er The of el or on e of it s cri ti cs

is co rrec t be cau se ev en if we ad op te d The of el ’s reas o n i n g w e st il l wou ld co nc lu de

th at th e se nt Hol la nd em ai l was no t st or ed on th e Gm ai l se rv er fo r ba ck up pr ot ect io n

pu rp os es

. The of

el ack no wled ge d “ th e m ere fact th at a co py co ul d se rv e as a ba ck up

do es no t m e a n it is st or ed fo r th at pu rp os e.” 35 9 F.3 d at 10 76

. Thu s it s ho ld in g

rel ie d on a fu nc ti on al di st in ct io n th at ti ed “ th e li fes pa n of a ba ck up

. . . to th at of th e

un de rlyin g m es sa ge .” Id . And “ [w]here t he un de rlyin g m es sa ge ha s ex pi red in th e

no rm al co ur se , any cop y

is no lo ng er p erfo rm in g a ny back up fun ct io n.” Id.

-2 9-Here, Anz al du a si m pl y al le ge d th at hi s se nt em ai l rem ai ne d on Gm ai l’s se rv er

as a m at te r of co ur se

. We h o l d t h a t on ce Anz al du a su cces sf ul ly se nt th e em ai l to

Hol la nd

, as he al le ge d he di d, th e co py Gm ai l ret ai ne d on it s se rv er as a se nt m es sa ge

di d no t pe rfo rm a ba ck up fu nc ti on

. See id

. (“ An [em ai l se rv ic e] th at ke pt pe rm an en t 8

co pi es of te m

po rary m es sa ge s co ul d no t fai rly be de sc rib ed as ‘back in g up ’ t h o s e

m es sa ge s.”) ; se e al so Kerr, A Use r’s Gui de

, at 12 18 (“ Alt ho ug h it is un cl ear wha t

‘nor m al co ur se ’ th e Nin th Ci rcu it ha s in m in d, th e ap pa ren t te st is whe th er th e us er

or em pl oyees of th e se rv ic e pr ov id er ha ve reas on to be li ev e th at th ey m ay ne e d to

acce ss an ad di ti on al co py of th e fi le in th e fu tu re.”) . If Theo fel ha s an y ap pl ic at io n

he re, it woul d be to pr ot ect a co py of th e em ai l sto red wit h Hol la nd ’s em ai l se rv ic e,

no t Anz al du a’s. See The of el

, 35 9 F.3 d at 10 75 (s ta ti ng th at a b a c ku p co py wou ld

“ pr ov id e a se co nd co py of th e m es sa ge in th e ev en t th at th e us er ne ed s to do wnl oa d

it a g a in —i f, fo r ex am

pl e, th e m es sa ge is acci de nt al ly eras ed fro m th e us er’s own

co m pu te r”).

Acco rd in gl y , ne it he r th e dr aft of th e Dr. Tan em ai l no r th e se nt Hol la nd em ai l

fal ls wit hi n t he pro te ct io n a ffo rd ed by the SCA. 9

B. MCTA

Fi na ll y , we ad dr es s Anz al du a’s arg um en t th at it was erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t

to de ny hi m le av e to am en d hi s MCTA cl ai m s. In ad va nc in g th es e cl ai m s,

Anz al du a’s pr op os ed fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt rel ie d on th e sa m e fact ua l al le ga ti on s

Oth er p ro vi si on s of the SCA, se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 27 02 (a) a nd 27 03 (b ), pr ot ect 8

co pi es of em ai ls he ld by rem ot e co m pu ti ng se rv ic es , whi ch “ pr ov i[d e] to th e pu bl ic

. . . co mp ut er st or ag e or pr oc es si ng se rv ic es by m ean s of an el ect ro ni c

co m m un ic at io ns syste m .” Id . § 2 71 1( 2)

.

Anz al du a arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n d is m is si ng hi s SC A cla im s i n t he 9

or ig in al co m

pl ai nt

. Beca us e th os e cl ai m s s uf fer t he same defe ct as th e SCA clai m s in th e p ro po se d fi rs t am en de d c om pl ai nt , th ere was no erro r.

-3 0-as hi s SC A cla im s. He ad di ti on al ly alle ge d t ha t h e o wne d t he Dr. Tan an d Ho ll an d

em ai ls

, th at Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge to ok an d di sc lo se d th e em ai ls fro m a co m pu te r,

co m pu te r syste m , or co m

pu te r ne two rk

, an d th at Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge rece iv ed

,
ret ai ne d, us ed

, or di sc lo se d th e em ai ls

, whi ch th ey kn ew or be li ev ed ha d be en

ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n o f th e MC TA.

As it di d wit h Anz al du a’s SCA cl ai m s, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d am en dm en t of

Anz al du a’s MCTA cl ai m s wou ld be fu ti le be cau se Anz al du a fai l e d t o al le ge

un au th or iz ed ta ki ng , di sc lo su re, or us e of th e em ai ls

, as req ui red by th e MCTA. On

ap pe al

, Anz al du a arg ue s he su ffi ci en tl y a l l e g e d su ch un au th or iz ed co nd uc t. W e

ag ree. See Kin gm an v. Dil la rd ’s, In c., 64 3 F.3 d 60 7, 61 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ ‘W he n

de te rm in in g th e sc op e of Mi ss ou ri la w, we are bo un d by th e de ci si on s of th e Su pr em e

Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri. If th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri ha s no t ad dr es se d an is su e, we

m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e co ur t wou ld ru le

, an d we fo ll ow de ci si on s fro m th e in te rm ed ia te

st at e co ur ts w h e n th ey are th e be st ev id en ce of Mi ss ou ri la w.’ ” (q uo ti ng Eub an k v.

Kan . Cit y Po wer & Li gh t Co ., 62 6 F .3d 42 4, 4 27 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) )).

Und er th e MCTA, a p ers on co m m it s th e cri m e of co m

pu te r ta m pe rin g if he

“ kn owi ng ly an d wit ho ut au th or iz at io n or wit ho ut reas on ab le gr ou nd s to be li ev e th at

he ha s su ch au th or iz at io n:

. . . (3 ) D i s c l o s e s o r ta ke s da ta

. . . res id in g or ex is ti ng

in te rn al or ex te rn al to a co m pu te r, co m

pu te r syste m , or co m

pu te r ne two rk ; or

. . . (6 )

Rec e i v e s , r e t a i ns , u se s, or di sc lo se s an y da ta he kn ows or be li ev es was ob ta in ed in

vi ol at io n of th is su bs ect io n.” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 9.0 95

. The st at ut e pr ov id es a ci vi l

cau se of a ct io n fo r “ th e o wne r . . . of th e . . . dat a.” Id . § 5 37 .52 5.

Few cas es di sc us s th e MCTA, an d th e on es th at d o a r e n o t r el ev an t he re.

Nev ert he le ss , fo r th e reas on s pr ov id ed in ou r di sc us si on of Anz al du a’s SCA cl ai m s,

we ha ve n o di ffi cu lt y pr ed ic ti ng th at th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld fin d th at

Anz al du a su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d Ch ie f Fa rw el l an d W el ge act ed “ kn owi ng ly an d wit ho ut

au th or iz at io n or wit ho ut reas on ab le gr ou nd s t o be li ev e th at [th ey ha d] su ch

-3 1-au th or iz at io n. ” W e fu rth er fin d th at Anz al du a’s pr op os ed fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt

sa ti sf ie s th e ot he r el em en ts of th e MCTA be cau se Anz al du a al le ge d fact s su pp or ti ng

th at he own ed th e em ai ls an d th at Ch ie f Farwe ll an d W el ge to ok an d lat er di sc lo se d

th e em ai ls , whi ch th ey

kn ew ha d b een ob ta in ed wit ho ut au th or iz at io n.

Acco rd in gl y , we fin d t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g Anz al du a le av e to

am en d h is MCTA cl ai m s. 1 0

IV. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e

de fen da nt s as to Anz al du a’s Fi r s t A men dm en t cl ai m s, th e di sm is sa l of Anz al du a’s

SCA cl ai m s in hi s or ig in al co m pl ai nt , and th e de ni al of le av e to am en d Anz al du a’s

SCA cl ai m s. W e rev ers e th e de ni al of le av e to am en d Anz al du a’s MCTA cl ai m s. W e

rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns th a t t he di st ric t co ur t gr an t Anz al du a

le av e to fil e an am en de d c om pl ai nt ass ert in g h is MCTA cl ai m s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Anz al du a al so arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng th e MCTA cl ai m s 1 0

in hi s or ig in al co m

pl ai nt

. Bec au se we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r red in de nyin g le av e to am en d t he se cla im s, we n eed no t ad dr es s t he ir o rig in al di sm is sa l.

-3 2-