2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-12-2010 

# Rory W al sh v . Rob e r t Krant z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1217

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Rory W al sh v . Ro be r t Kr antz " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 972. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/972NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1217

___________ R O R Y M . W A L SH , i ndi vi dual l yand as N atur al

G u ard ian o f C . R . W . , a m ino r, A p p e llan t, v . DR . RO BE RT KR ANT Z ; M RS . S HAR I YOUNG ; M RS. SUE CA THC AR T; M RS. KEEN EY; M RS. KELLY HEI S EY; UNK NOW N DA LL AST OW N ST AFF M EM BER ; DR . STEWA RD W EI NB ERG ; DA LLASTOW N A REA S CH OOL DI S T RI CT ; CA T HY S T ONE ; GR E G ANDE RS ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 00616) D i s tr i ctJ udge: C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y9, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, G R E E N A W A Y and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y12, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t R o ryM . W alsh fil ed a c ivil ac ti o n p ro se in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt1

W al s h al s o named t he Penns y l vani a D epartm entof Educat i on as a def endant . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thi s defe ndantpur s uantt o the El eventh A m endment , s ee Pennhur s tSt at e Sch. & H os p. v. H al derm an, 465 U . S. 89, 100 ( 1983) , and W al s h has not ch all en g ed this de term ination in h is brief o n ap p ea l. T h e issu e o f th is de fe n d an t’ s d ism issal i s thu s w aive d . S ee K o st v. K o za k iew icz, 1 F . 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 2 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tthe D al l as t ow n A r ea School D i s tr i ctand a num berof i t s offi ci al s and s t aff m ember s , i ncl udi ng then Pr i nci pal D r . R obertK r ant z, S h a r i A . Y o u n g , A s s i s t a n tP r i n c i p a l S u e A . C a th c a r t , J u d y K e e n e y, K e l l y H e i s e y, S u p e r i n t e n d e n tDr . S t e wa r tWe i n b e r g , S t e v e n L . T u rn e r , a n d a n “ u n k n o wn Da l l a s t o wn s t aff m ember . ” W al s h fi l ed the ac t i on on behal f of hi m s el f i ndi vi dual l yand hi s s on,

1 C . R . W . , a D al l as t ow n A r ea M i ddl e School s tudent , w ho att ended the 7th gr ade dur i ng t he 2 0 0 5 -20 0 6 sch o o l y ea r. W al s h’ s or i gi nal compl ai nts etfor th ni ne count s : ( 1) cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 4 1 ; ( 2 ) co n sp ir ac yin v iolati o n o f c ivil ri g h ts, 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 5 (3); (3) a Pr i vacyA ctvi ol at i on, 5 U . S. C . § 552; ( 4) a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 119; ( 5) a Feder al W i r et appi ng A ctvi ol at i on, 18 U . S. C . §§ 2510- 2520; ( 6) a vi ol at i on of 47 U . S. C . § 605 on unauthor i zed publ i cat i on orus e of c om m uni cat i ons ; ( 7) a Penns y l vani a W i r et ap A ct vi ol at i on, 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. §§ 5703, 5704, 5725; ( 8) ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i ons , 42 U . S. C . § 1983; and ( 9) a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 875 on i nt er s t at e comm uni cat i ons . T he cl ai m s r el at ed t o tw o t el ephone c al l s W al s h m ade on M ar ch 29, 2006 t o C . R . W . atthe M idd le S ch o o l, the f

ir st t o D r. K ran tz an d the s ec o n d to C . R . W . W alsh all eg ed that D r.T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned, forthe r eas ons gi ven bythe court , that 2 C o u n ts O n e , T w o , T h re e , F o u r, an d N in e o f th e o rig in a l co m p lain t w e re su b jec t to di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. See 3 K r ant z, w i th t he as s i s t ance of an unknow n D al l as t ow n s t aff m emberand w i thout authori zat i on , eavesd ropped on his t el eph on e con versat i on w i th h i s son. W al sh al so ra is e d s p e c if

ic c o m p la in ts a b o u t h o w h e a n d h is s o n w e re tr e a te d b ys c h o o l p e rs o n n e l. W al sh soug ht $600 , 00 0. 00 i n d am ages. T h e d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(6 ). In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d a ll cl ai m s bas ed on fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es ( C ount s O ne, Four , and N i ne) beca us e the s peci fi ed s t atut es di d notpr ovi de fora pr i vat e r i ghtof enf or cement , and pr i vat e part i es g e n e r a l l yl a c k a u th o r i tyt o e n f o r c e f e d e r a l c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e s , s e e Co n n e c t i c u tAc t i o n No w, Inc. v. R ob ert s Plat i ng C o. , 45 7 F . 2d 81 , 86 -87 (2d C i r. 19 72 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so di s m i s s ed the s ect i on 1985( 3) cl ai m ( C ountT w o) forl ack of an al l egat i on thatanyr ace orcl as s - bas ed di s cr i m i nat oryani m us m ot i vat ed the def endant s ’ conduct , G r i ffi n v. B r ecke nr i dge, 403 U . S. 88, 102 ( 1971) . I n addi t i on, the courtdi s m i s s ed the Pr i vacyA ct c laim (C o u n t T h re e ) a g a in st th e S c h o o l D istric t an d C a th c a rt b e c a u se th e A c t ap p lies o n ly t o fede r al agenc i es , 5 U . S. C . § 552a( b) ; 5 U . S. C . § 552( e) . See Schw i erv. C ox, 340 F. 3d 1284, 1287- 88 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( Sect i on 3 of Pr i vacyA ctappl i es onl yt o fede r al agenc i es and s et s for th an i ndi vi dual ’ s r i ghtt o r ecor ds of fe der al agenc i es and r i ghtt o be pr ot ect ed fro m d iscl o su re o f re co rds b yfe d era l age n cies). 2A shcroftv. Iqbal , 12 9 S . C t . 19 37 , 19 49 (2009 ). W e w i l l affirm these de t erm i nati on s,

w hi ch do notr equi r e addi t i onal di s cus s i on. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e c o m p lain t f a iled to a lleg e a p lau sib le 3 su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n . S e e Iq b a l, 12 9 S . C t. at 1 9 4 9 . W e a f f irm th is det erm i nat i on, w hi ch does notr equi r e addi t i onal di s cus s i on. 4 A s t o W al sh’s al l egati on that hi s Fo urt eenth A m end m ent s ub st anti ve d ue p rocess r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe al l eged c onductof the defe nd ants – recom m end i ng that C . R . W . be tes t ed, chan ging du e dates of assi gn m ents , cal l i ng W al s h names a nd otherw i s e att empt i ng t o pr eci pi t at e an e ventathi s r es i dence , and r es tr i ct i ng W al s h’ s acc es s t o t he s chool – di d nots hock the cons ci ence , s ee Chai ney v . S tr e e t , 5 2 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 1 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ To e s t a b l i s h a s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove the part i cul ari nt er es tati s s ue i s pr ot ect ed bythe s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl aus e and the governm ent ’ s depr i vat i on of thatpr ot ect ed i nt er es ts hocks the c o n sc ien c e .”). T h e c o u rt a lso f o u n d n o p lau sib le s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim in W alsh ’s all eg ati o n that A ssist an t Princ ipal C athc art i m p rop erlyinf o rm ed C . R . W . ’s t eac her s thatW al s h had r efus ed t o al l ow C . R . W . t o be t es t ed. A ccor di ngl y , thes e s ect i on 1 9 8 3 c laim s w e re d ism iss e d . T h e D istric t C o u rt a llo w e d W a lsh ’s f e d e ra l an d sta te 3 w i r et appi ng count s and s ect i on 1983 Four th A m endmentcountt o pr ocee d, and gr ant ed W al s h l eave t o amend w i th r es pectt o hi s countbas ed on 47 U . S. C . § 605. W al s h t hen fi l ed hi s amended compl ai nt , i n w hi ch he a dded new cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng one on beha l f of C. R . W . and hi s ot herchi l d, S. J . W . , forbr eac h of fi duci arytrus t , an i ndi vi dual cl ai m and cl ai m s on behal f of C. R . W . and S. J . W . fori nt ent i onal and negl i gentW e af fi r m thi s det erm i nat i on, w hi ch does notr equi r e addi t i onal di s cus s i on. See 4 I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1949. W alsh h as n o t cha ll en g ed thes e tw o d eterm ination s in h is brief o n ap p ea l and theyare 5 thus w ai ved. See K os t , 1 F. 3d at182. 5 i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , and a c l ai m pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1981. T he defe ndant s r es ponded byfi l i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai nt , Fed. R . C i v. P ro . 1 2 (b )(6 ). In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n A u g u st 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt f in a lly di s m i s s ed W al s h’ s cl ai m of a vi ol at i on of 47 U . S. C . § 605, beca us e the amended co m p lai n t did n o t al lege an interst ate o r fo reign co m m u n icati o n , see id. at6 0 5 (a)(1). 4 T h e c o u r td i s m i s s e d th e P e n n s y l v a n i a Wi r e t a p A c tc o u n tb r o u g h to n b e h a l f o f C . R . W. b ec au se, as the rec ipien t of the c o m m u n icati o n at i ssu e, he lack ed stan d ing , an d the c o u rt d ism iss e d th e sta te w ire tap c o u n t alto g e th e r a s to th e S c h o o l D istric t p u rsu a n t to its im m u n ityf

ro m su it u n d e r th e P o lit ica l S u b d iv isio n T o rt C laim s A c t, 18 P a . C o n s. S tat. A nn. § 8541. 5 In th e s a m e o rd e r, t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d th e b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry tru s t c la im . W al s h al l eged i n t he amended compl ai ntthatD r . W ei nber g and K el l yH ei s eybr eac hed a fi duci arydutybyor der i ng the Speci al E ducat i on O ffi ce t o del i vera r eques tforeval uat i on o f C . R . W . to W alsh , an d that C athyS ton e a n d G reg A n d erso n b rea ch ed their fidu ciary du tybyat t em pti ng t o assi gn S . J. W . t o a low er gr ade level i n m at h an d refusi ng t o d i scuss the mat t erw i th W al s h. T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatno pl aus i bl e cl ai m w as s t at ed s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, becaus e the def endant s ’ al l eged c onduct6

i nvol ved onl yr ecomm endat i ons , w hi ch W al s h s ubs equent l yr ej ect ed – a r ej ect i on s chool per s onnel acc ept ed, s ee Bot t or f v. W al t z, 369 A . 2d 332, 334 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1976) (d isc u ss in g b a sic d u ties in v o lv e d in tea c h e r-s tu d e n t re latio n sh ip , inc lu d in g d u tyto ex erc ise g o o d jud g m en t) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s count pu rs uan tt o R ule 12(b)( 6) becau se the co nd uct al l eged – b el i t t l i ng i nsult s, heated em ai l s, demands forC . R . W . t o under go educa t i onal t es t i ng, att empt s t o r es tr i ctS. J . W . fr om bei ng t aughtathi s gr ade l evel , thr eat s t o have W al s h arr es t ed – w as notoutr ageous and extr eme, s ee Sw i s herv. Pi t z, 868 A . 2d 1228, 1231 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2005) ( fort or tof i n t e n t i o n a l i n f

l i c t i o n o f e mo t i o n a l d i s tr e s s t o p r o c e e d c o n d u c ta l l e g e d mu s tb e e x tr e me and ou trageou s) , and the co urtdis m i ssed the n egli gen ti nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s c la im b e c a u s e a ll o f

th e c o n d u c t a lle g e d w a s in te n tio n a l. T h e c la im u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1981 w as di s m i s s ed bec aus e W al s h di d notal l ege thathe orhi s s ons bel onged t o a pr ot ect ed cl as s , orthatthe def endant s act ed w i th an i nt entt o di s cr i m i nat e on the bas i s of rac e. S ee P ry o r v. N at’l C o ll eg iat e A thleti c A ss’n , 2 8 8 F . 3 d 5 4 8 , 5 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tr efe r r ed al l di s coverym att er s t o the M agi s tr at e J udge and d isc o v e ryth e n e n su e d . W a lsh d e p o se d se v e ra l o f th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d th e d e f

e n d a n ts depos ed W al s h. A tthe conc l us i on of di s covery , the r emai ni ng defe ndant s m oved for s um m aryj udgm entpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( c) . A ft erthe M agi s tr at e J udge fi l ed a Reportand R ecomm endat i on, the D i s tr i ctC our t , i n an or derandW al s h’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on w as deni ed. 6 R u le 5 6 (c ) w a s a m e n d e d e f f e c tiv e D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 , an d c o n tin u e s to p ro v id e th a t: 7 “T h e jud g m en t sou g h t sho u ld b e re n d ere d if th e p lead ing s, the d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m at er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 5 6 (c)(2). 7 j ud gm ent ent ered on D ecem ber 18, 2009 , grant ed the defen dan t s’ m oti on . W al sh 6 app eal s. W e w i l l aff

i r m . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W al s h cont ends on appea l thats um m aryj udgm enton the fe der al and s t at e w i r et ap and Fourth A m endment claim s w as im p rop er a n d the D istri ct C o u rtign o red h is ex p ert repo rt ; th e D istri ct C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e re c u se d ; d isc o v e ryw a s im p ro p e rlylim ited a n d th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rly barr ed hi m fi l i ng anyfur therm ot i ons forr econs i der at i on; he w as i m pr oper l ydeni ed the oppor tuni tyt o amend hi s compl ai ntfora s econd t i m e; and hi s s ect i on 1981, br eac h of fid u ciarytru st, an d inten ti o n al an d n eg li g en t i n fli cti o n o f e m o ti o n al distr ess c lai m s w ere i m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. Ou rr e v i e w o f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ' s g r a n to f s u mm a ryj u d g me n ti s p l e n a rya n d we m u st a f f irm if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . S ee C elotex C o rp. v. C atrett , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -23 (19 8 6 ); Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 56( c) ( eff ect i ve thr ough N ovember30, 2009) . U nderR ul e 56( c) , t he 7 m ovi ng partym us ts how thatther e i s an abs ence of evi dence t o s uppor tthe nonmovi ng p a rty ’s c a se . S e e id . O n c e th e m o v in g p a rtyh a s m e t th is b u rd e n , the n o n m o v in g p a rty8

m aynotr es tupon hi s al l egat i ons and ar gum ent s ; r ather , the nonmovi ng partym us t“s et o u t spe cific f

ac ts sho w ing a g en u ine issu e f o r tri al. ” F ed . R . C iv. Pro . 5 6 (e)(2). “W h ere the r ecor d t aken a s a w hol e coul d notl ead a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctt o fi nd forthe nonm o v in g p a rty , the re is n o g e n u in e iss u e f o r tria l.” M a tsu sh ita E lec . In d u s. C o . v . Z e n ith R a d io C o rp ., 4 7 5 U .S . 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (1 9 8 6 ). A p lain tiff c a n n o t av o id su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith s pecul at i on; he mustpr ovi de compet entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcan fi nd i n hi s favor . See R i dgew ood B d. of Educ. v. N . E . ex r el . M . E . , 172 F. 3d 238, 252 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he def endant s pl ai nl ym etthei rbur den underR ul e 56( c) , and thus W al s h w as r equi r ed t o go bey ond hi s pl eadi ngs and al l egat i ons , and byaff i davi t s , orbythe

“ d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a n d a d m iss io n s o n f ile,” d e sig n a te “ sp e c if

ic f a c ts s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” C el ot ex C orp. , 477 U . S. at324 ( quot i ng R ul e 56( e) ( 2) ) . A m at er i al fac tual di s put e i s a di s put e as t o a fa ctual i s s ue thatw i l l aff ect the out come of t he tr i al underthe governi ng l aw . A nder s on v. L i bertyL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 248 ( 1986) . W e conc l ude thats um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D r . K r ant z and the School D i s tr i ctw as pr operon W al s h’ s i ndi vi dual Feder al W i r et appi ng A ctcl ai m and cl ai m on behal f of C. R . W . U nderthe Feder al W i r et appi ng A ct , anyper s on w ho “i nt ent i onal l yi nt er cept s , endea vor s t o i nt er cept , orpr ocur es anyotherper s on t o i nt er cept orendea vort o i nt er ceptanyw i r e, or al , orel ectr oni c comm uni cat i on” vi ol at es the A ct . 18 U . S. C . § 2511( 1) ( a) . T he A ctdefi nes “i nt er cept ” t o m ean “ the aur al orotheracqui s i t i on9

of the cont ent s of anyw i r e, el ectr oni c oror al comm uni cat i on thr ough the us e of a ny e le c tr o n ic , m e c h a n ic a l, o r o th e r d e v ic e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 0 (4 ). D ur i ng the fi r s tt el ephone c al l on the morni ng of M ar ch 29, 2006, W al s h s poke w ith D r. K ra n tz a n d a sk e d h im to re lay a m e ss a g e to C .R .W . W a lsh p lac e d a se c o n d c a ll and s poke di r ect l yt o C . R . W . , w ho w as al l ow ed t o t ake the ca l l ei theri n D r . K r ant z’ s or a n o th e r a d m in istra to r’s o f f ice . W a lsh c o n ten d e d th a t D r. K ra n tz h a d th e tec h n o lo g yto eave s dr op on hi s cal l t o C . R . W . , and i n fac ti nt ent i onal l yl i s t ened i n. D r . K r ant z t es t i fi ed in h is de p o sit ion that C . R . W . too k the c all fro m W alsh . D r. K ran tz l ef t th e o ff ice w h ere C .R .W . to o k th e c a ll a n d w e n t o u t in to th e o u te r o f f ic e a re a a n d ta lk e d to th e s e c re ta ri e s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatther e w as no evi dence upon w hi ch a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd thatD r . K r ant z i nt er cept ed the s econd t el ephone c al l i n vi ol at i on of fede r al l aw . T her e w er e ey e- w i tnes s es t o the eve nt s i n ques t i on, theyw er e depos ed by W a lsh , an d th e yp ro v id e d n o su p p o rt f o r h is a lleg a tio n th a t D r. K ra n tz in ter c e p ted th e c a ll th ro u g h u s e o f

a n y“ e le c tr o n ic , m e c h a n ic a l, o r o th e r d e v ic e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 0 (4 ). W al s h cont ends i n hi s br i ef on a ppeal thata tr i abl e i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw as e s ta b lis h e d b yh is e x p e rt re p o rt , tw o e m a ils f ro m D r. K ra n tz , a n d C .R .W .’s a f f id a v it. W al s h s uppl i ed a l ett erfr om an expe r t , w ho s t at ed thatan A vay a Tel ephone Set6416D has confe r ence cal l capa bi l i t i es . B ut , even i f the M i ddl e School O ffi ce ha d confe r ence cal l capa bi l i t i es , thatfac tal one i s notpr obat i ve of w hetherD r . K r ant z us ed conf er ence cal l capa bi l i t i es t o l i s t en i n. Fur therm or e, nothi ng i n the cont ent s of the tw o emai l s s entA t1: 06 p. m . , D r . K r ant z w r ot e: 8 M r . W al s h,

[C . R . W . ] i nform ed me t haty ou had as ked hi m t o gi ve hi s out l i ne ( orfi ni s h) to M r. H a rtm a n a n d c o m p lete so m e e x tra c re d it. H e w a s p u lled f ro m m a th cl as s t o t al k w i th y ou. I w oul d pr efe rnott o cal l hi m betw een c l as s es or dur i ng cl as s forphone ca l l s and al l ow hi m t o focus on s ubj ectw or k. I had p re v io u slytalk e d w ith C .R .W . ab o u t th e A ss ig n m e n t. Ju st le t u s k n o w to rem ind h im an d g ive h im p o sit ives ab o u t A ssign m en ts. W e n ee d to w o rk t ogetherut i l i zi ng the bes tpos s i bl e pr act i ces and I bel i eve thatthe emai l i ng and as s i gnm entbook, al ong w i th couns el or , t eac her , and pr i nci pal rem i nd ers w i l l bri ng abo ut posi t i ve resul t s. B ob A f t e rr e c e i v i n g a r e s p o n s e f r o m Wa l s h , i n w h i c h h e c o m p l a i n e d th a th i s a c c e s s t o C . R . W. w as bei ng bl ocked, D r . K r ant z w r ot e:

I ti s neverm yi nt entt o bl ock y ouracc es s t o y ours on, butI m us tkeep i ns truct i onal t i m e as a pr i or i tyforthe s ake of y ours on and our re sp o n sib ili tyf

ro m a p a re n t an d p rin c ip a l sta n d p o in t. I h a v e c o n tin u e d to m oni t orthe t eam’ s appr oach w i th s tudent s . I ti s i m por t antthatw e cont i nue a pos i t i ve w or ki ng r el at i ons hi p t o keep [ C . R . W . ] on tr ack, butal s o m ake hi m r es pons i bl e. B ob 10 thatm orni ng byD r . K r ant z t o W al s h pr ovi ded evi dence thatD r . K r ant z l i s t ened i n on anothert el ephone w hi l e C . R . W . w as t al ki ng t o W al s h. T he tw o emai l s i ndi s put abl ydo notpr ovi de di r ect

evi dence of an i nt er cept i on, and i nfer ence of an i nt er cept i on cannot 8 r eas onabl ybe dr aw n fr om the emai l s . W al s h cont ended thatD r . K r ant z coul d nothave r efe r ence d an “out l i ne” a nd “extr a cr edi tas s i gnm ent ” i n thos e emai l s unl es s he had be enI n hi s aff i davi t , C . R . W . s t at ed: “D ur i ng 29 M ar ch 06, ear l yi n the day , D r . K r ant z, 9 the pr i nci pal of the D al l as t ow n M i ddl e School , appr oache d m e and i nform ed me m ydad h a d c a l l e d t o r e mi n d me t o tu r n i n myo u t l i n e t o M r . Ha r t ma n . La t e rth a ts a me d a y , my d a d c a lled a n d re m in d e d m e th a t I a lso h a d to se e M rs. Y o u n g d u rin g 9 th p e rio d to co m p let e m yex tr a c red itp rojec t fo r th e 3 rd M ark ing P eriod . I co m p let ed b o th task s. D r. K ra n tz d id n o t s p e a k to m e a g a in th a t d a y .” 11 l i s t eni ng i n, butthi s i s s pecul at i on. W al s h pr ovi ded no evi dence thatw oul d cr eat e a rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce that D r. K ran tz co u ld n o t hav e lea rne d o f th e o u tl ine a n d the e x tr a cre d itw o rk b ym ea n s o ther tha n interce p ti n g the c all . S im il arly , n o thing in C . R . W . ’s aff i davi ts uppor t s di r ect l yorci r cumst ant i al l yW al s h’ s al l egat i on thatD r . K r ant z l i s t ened i n on anothert el ephone dur i ng C . R . W . ’ s conver s at i on w i th W al s h. 9 In a sm u c h a s D r. K ra n tz d id n o t “in ter c e p t” th e tele p h o n e c a ll, lo g ica llyh e c o u ld nothave “ di s cl os ed” the cont entof the ca l l t o a thi r d per s on, or“us ed” a nyi nform at i on d iscl o sed d u ri n g the c all fo r an yp u rpo se, 18 U . S . C . § 2 5 1 1 (1)(c), ( d ). A cc o rdin g ly , D r. K r ant z and the School D i s tr i ctw er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton the Feder al W ire tap p in g A c t cla im . T h e p ro v isio n s o f P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s W ire tap A c t ap p lica b le to th is cas e ar e s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame as the pr ovi s i ons of the Feder al W i r et appi ng A ct . T he s t at e w i r et ap ac ti s i nt erpr et ed i n t he s ame w ayas the fe der al A ct . See Fr as erv. N a tio n w id e M u t. In s. C o ., 3 5 2 F .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 3 n .6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly , D r. K ra n tz al s o w as ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton W al s h’ s i ndi vi dual cl ai m of a vi ol at i on of the P e n n sy lv a n ia W ire tap p in g A c t. T o es t abl i s h a s ect i on 1983 cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e a de pr i vat i on of a12

“r i ghts ecur ed bythe C ons t i tut i on and the l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . . . bya per s on act i ng undercol orof l aw . ” See K nei pp v. T edder , 95 F. 3d 1199, 1204 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he Four th A m endment , upon w hi ch W al s h’ s i ndi vi dual s ect i on 1983 cl ai m and cl ai m on behal f of C. R . W . ar e bas ed, pr ohi bi t s unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . Sol dal v. C ook C ounty , I l l . , 506 U . S. 56, 62 ( 1992) . A ppl i cat i on of the Four th A m endmentdepends on w hetherthe per s on i nvoki ng i tcan c l ai m a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy . Sm i th v. M ary l and, 442 U . S. 735, 740 ( 1979) . H er e, W al s h di d notpr ovi de evi dence thatei therhe o r C .R .W . h a d a re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c yin th e se c o n d tele p h o n e c a ll. T h e c a ll w as m ade thr ough a t el ephone l i ne t o the M i ddl e School , i tw as t aken i n a s chool admi ni s tr at or ’ s offi ce, and ther e i s no evi dence thatei therW al s h orC . R . W . as ked for p riv a c y . W h a t a p e rso n k n o w in g lye x p o se s to th e p u b lic is n o t en tit led to F o u rth A m endmentpr ot ect i on. See K at z v. U ni t ed St at es , 389 U . S. 347, 351 ( 1967) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned thatthe def endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm ent o n th e F o u r th Ame n d me n tc l a i m. T urni ng t o t he r emai ni ng i s s ues , dur i ng the t i m e w hen di s coveryw as ongoi ng W alsh fil ed a m o ti o n to rec u se, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied. A fter the D istri ct C o u rt den i ed ap peals from the M agis trat e Judg e’s orders res olvi ng dis cov erydis pu t es, W al sh fi l ed a s econd mot i on forr ecus al . T hatm ot i on w as deni ed. W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l ydecl i ned t o r ecus e. W e have r evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d and ther e i s no bas i s forr eas onabl yques t i oni ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i m part i al i ty , 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . SeeI n hi s r epl ybr i ef W al s h s t at es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s negat i ve vi ew of hi m can be 10 tr ace d t o an ea r l i erl aw s ui t , W al s h v. U ni t ed St at es , D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00818, butt he D i s tr i ctC our tw as thor ough i n i t s appr oach t o the al l egat i ons i n the i ns t antl aw s ui t , and di d notbas e i t s j udgm enton the l ack of m er i ti n the pr i orcas e. See W al s h v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 Fed. A ppx. 806 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( aff i rm i ng gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand h o l d i n g th a tf

o r me rma r i n e ’ s c o n c l u s o rya c c u s a t i o n s o f g e n e r a l ’ s i n v o l v e me n ti n h o me inv asio n s w ere insu ff

ici en t t o estab li sh li ab il ityu n d er F o u rth an d F ifth A m en d m en ts) .

13 L i t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U . S. 540, 550- 51 ( 1994) ( j udge i s notr ecus abl e forbi as or pr ej udi ce w her e hi s know l edge a nd negat i ve opi ni on w er e ac qui r ed dur i ng the cour s e of pr ocee di ngs ) . See al s o Secur acomm C ons ul t i ng, I nc. v. Secur acom, I nc. , 224 F. 3d 273, 2 7 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (p a rty ’s d isp lea su re w ith leg a l ru lin g s d o e s n o t f o rm a n a d e q u a te b a sis forr ecus al ) . W i th r es pectt o 28 U . S. C . § 144, W al s h’ s aff i davi tdoes notevi nce bi as t hat is pe rson al i n n ature , see U n it ed S tat es v . T h o m p so n , 4 8 3 F . 2 d 5 2 7 , 5 2 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 3 ). 10 W al s h cont ends thathi s r i ghtt o di s coveryw as i m pr oper l yr es tr i ct ed. H e s t at es , for exam ple, that the rost er of adm i nis trat i ve p ers on nel w as w i thh el d from him un t i l the las t dayof di s covery , s ee A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef, at24. W al s h fi l ed a numberof m ot i ons for r econs i der at i on of var i ous or der s r es ol vi ng di s coverym att er s , cul m i nat i ng i n the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s M ar ch 20, 2009 or der , i n w hi ch the courts t at ed thati tw oul d notcons i derany fur therm ot i ons r eques t i ng thati tr econs i deri t s ear l i erdeci s i ons . W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n the managementof di s coveryi n thi s cas e, s ee I n r e: Fi ne PaperA nt i trus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( m att er s of docke t contr ol and conduc tof di s coveryar e comm i tt ed t o the s ound di s cr et i on of the di s tr i ct c o u rt). T h e re c o rd re f

lec ts th a t W a lsh w a s g iv e n a m p le tim e to c o n d u c t d isc o v e ry , h e d id14

in f a c t d e p o se se v e ra l w itn e ss e s a n d su b m it an e x p e rt re p o rt, an d h e h a s n o t p o in ted to a n ye v i d e n c e th a two u l d h a v e a f f e c t e d th e o u t c o me o f

th e tr i a l u n d e rth e g o v e rn i n g l a w, A n d erso n , 4 7 7 U . S . at 24 8 , h ad d isco v eryb ee n ex tend ed . C f. F ed . R . C iv. Pro . 5 6 (f) (“If a partyoppos i ng the mot i on s how s byaff i davi tthat , fors peci fi ed r eas ons , i tcannot pr es entfac t s es s ent i al t o j us t i fyi t s oppos i t i on, the courtm ay : *** ( 2) or dera cont i nuance t o enabl e af

fi davi t s t o be obt ai ned, depos i t i ons t o be t aken, orotherdi s coveryt o be u n d ertak en ”). W e conc l ude thatl eave t o fi l e a s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntt o add addi t i onal s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s al l egat i ons – thatSt one att empt ed t o bl ock S. J . W . fr om bei ng k e p t at g ra d e lev e l f

o r m a th , tha t sh e re c o m m e n d e d th a t S .J.W . b e h e ld b e lo w g ra d e lev e l, thatSt one and A nder s on r efus ed t o di s cus s thatr ecomm endat i on, thatC athcartw as the dr i vi ng for ce be hi nd the ac t i ons r egar di ng S. J . W . – pr oper l yw as deni ed bec aus e the conductal l eged doe s nots hock the cons ci ence . See A l vi n v. Suzuki , 227 F. 3d 107, 121 (3d C i r. 20 00 ) ( l eave to am end m aybe d enied i f am end m ent w ou l d b e futi l e). W al sh al so al l eged thatK eene y , a s ecr et ary , w as the “unknow n D al l as t ow n s t aff m ember , ” and he s oughtt o amend hi s compl ai ntacc or di ngl y . T hi s r eques tal s o pr oper l yw as deni ed b e c a u se a n a m e n d m e n t to n a m e K e e n e ya s th e u n k n o w n D a llas to w n sta f f m e m b e r w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

u til e . W a lsh ’s e v id e n c e o f a f e d e ra l o r sta te w ire tap v io latio n o r F o u rth A m endmentvi ol at i on w as i ns uffi ci entt o w i ths t and a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entT h e D istric t C o u rt su a sp o n te g r a n t e d s u mm a ryj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f th e “ u n k n o wn 11 D a lla s to w n s ta f

f m e m b e r.” 15 a g a i n s ta n yo n e , i n c l u d i n g K e e n e y. 11 L a st, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt, fo r th e re a so n s g iv e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt, thatW al s h’ s amended compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a pl aus i bl e s ect i on 1981 cl ai m , cl ai m for br eac h of fi duci arytrus t , orcl ai m fori nt ent i onal and negl i genti nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s . See I qbal , 129 S. C t . at 1949. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l aff i r m al l or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our t . T he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o vaca t e the C l erk’ s O r derof M ay18, 2010 i s deni ed.