## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3420 V ALER IE M C C ANN an d L ES LI E L IND BERG , P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v.
I RO Q UO IS M EMORIAL H OS PI T AL, et al. D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06- 2176

—H aro ld A . Bak er, Judge

. A RG UE D M AR CH 31, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 13, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Beh ind a closed office door, t w o c o-w or ke rs atIroq u ois M em or ial H os p ita l, V ale rie M cCann and Dr. Lesl i e Li nd ber g, had a c onver sat i on i n w hi ch theycr i ti ci zed hos pit al adm i ni str ati on. U nbeknown st to them , thei r conve rs ati on was r eco rded by a dict ati on m achi ne, tr anscr ibed , a nd handed to those th ey cr itic ize d . B elie vin g th at th e re c or d in g w as illega lly2 N o. 08

- 3420 obt ai ned, di scl ose d, an d used ag ai nst them , theysued an ot h er em p loy ee , Su sa n Fre ed , alon g w ith th e h o s p i t al, its Board of T rus tees, and i ts C hief Ex ecu tive Offi cer, S t e ph e n Le ur c k, u nd e r the Wi r e t a p Act, 1 8 U. S

. C. §§ 2511 , 2 52 0. M cCann and Li nd ber g b el i eve thatFr eed ca m e i nto L in dbe r g ’ s o ffi ce whi l e th eywer e ta l k i ng, a nd that w hile s he was o uto fthe i r l i ne o fs i g htpi ck i ng up pa per s nex t to Li ndbe r g ’ s di ct at i o n mach i ne , s he del ibe r at el y turned o n the machine t o r ec o r d the i r c o nve r sa ti o n. F r ee d re spo nds tha t sh e i nt er r upt ed a co nve r sa ti o n o fthe i r s o nc e butno t o n the da te o fthe taped conve rs ati on, and posi ts that Lind b erg f or gotto turn o ffhi s di ctat i on m ach i ne wh en M cCann enter ed his offi ce . The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t f o r th e d e fe n d a n t s , b a s e d l ar g e l y o n i n f e r e n c e s d r a wn f ro m the re cor ding i tse l f

. But beca use t h e parti es presente d tw o diff er ent b ut pl ausibl e s tor i es, a n is su e o ff act r emains
. W e co nc l ude tha t th e cl ai m s ag ains t F r ee d a nd th e h os p ita l bo il d ow n to a sw ea rin g c on t e s t a n d sh ou ld no th a v e b e e n r e s o l v e d o n s ummar y j ud g men t
. Ev en i fFr eed act ed unla w full y, howe ver, the evi dence do es no t sh o w that CEO Leu r ckk ne w tha t, a nd the on ly tr ustee wh o m i ght ha ve known di d not use o r disc l ose the re cor ding, s o w e a ffi rm the sum m ar y j ud gm ent o fthe cl ai m s a gai nst Leurc k a nd the tr ustee s.

I . B a c kg r o und This sag a be gi ns with M cCann’s ter m i nati on fro m th e h os p ita l, w h ich sh e re se n te d . M c C an n w as form er ly the di re cto r of p h ys ici ans’ se rv i ces, but i n ear l y F eb-N o. 08

- 3420 3

ruar y 2 006, she and seve ra l o therem plo yee s were gi ven a we e k t o r e s i g n a nd t o l d tha t i f the y r e s i g ne d b y F ebr ua r y 1 0 th eyc o ul d a ppl y f or n ew po si ti o ns . M cCa nn thought that thi s r eor gani zati on was r ea ll y a way f or th e t h en n ew C E O St e p h en L eu rc k t o ge t rid of p eo p le he di d not l i ke, and she thought she was a tar get
. M c C an n trie d to m ee t w ith L eu rc k t o d isc u ss t h e p os sibi l i ty ofa n ew p osi ti on, but he di d not m eetwith he r unt i l F e b r ua r y 1 0
. Th e up s ho t o f the mee t i ng wa s t hat she no l onge r had a j ob at the ho spi taland w oul d not be c onsi dered f ora new o ne. A ro und the sam e t im e, L eurckand the Board o f Truste es w er e a l so re or gani zi ng the ra dio l ogydepartm en t. Thi s putLi nd ber g ’ s r adi o l o g y s er vi ce s to the ho s pi t a l a t r i s k

. Th e ho s pi t a l us e d the s e r v i ces of L in d b er g a lon g w ith an ot h er gro u p o f d oc to rs , bu t it v o t e d t o us e o nl y o ne pr o v i de r i n the futur e. They ask ed Lindber g a nd o ther s t o subm i t pr op os als i fthey w i shed to be consi dered f orthe posi ti on o fexcl usi ve p ro vi der, but Lindberg ’ s pro posalwould have re q u i r e d a s e c o n d , u nn a me d p r o v i d e r a l o n gw i th h i m. Lindbergdi sapprove d ofthe w ay the a d m i ni str ati on w as ha nd l i ng thi ngs, and the adm i ni str ati on was not p articu larl y hap p y w ith h im either. Freed , w ho ove rsaw the st affwh o tr anscr ibed the ra dio l ogi sts’ di ctat ed rep orts, em ail ed Le urc k and anot he r adm inistrator, Susan Berg, co m pla i ni ng ab out Lind ber g’ s di ctat i on habi ts

— apparentl y he b ega n l ate i n the day

— an d th eir eff ect on herst affand patien t car e. Bergadded that L ind berg “let ‘poli tics’ get in th e w ay of patien t care an d sa fet y.”4 N o. 08

- 3420 On the a fte r no o n o fF eb r ua r y 2 4, 200 6, M cCa nn went t o v i s i t Li nd b e r g i n hi s o ffi c e . S he no l o ng e r w or ked f o r the ho spi ta l, b ut sh e s ti l l wor k ed f o r the I nde pen den t P h ys icia n s A ss oc iat ion , of w h ich L in d b er g w as p r es ident, and she needed Lindbergto si gn so m e che cks f or the Associ ati on. W hen M c C an n ar ri ved, Li nd ber g was dict ati ng a ra dio l ogyr ep or t i nto hi s di ctat i on m achi ne. He s a y s th a th e tu r n e d th e ma c h i n e o ff, a n d th e t wo exchanged gr eet i ngs. A ccor ding to M cCann and Li nd ber g, whi l e th e y we r e t a l k i n gF r e e d e n t e r e d th e o ffi c e wi th

outk no c k i ng . F r e e d c r o s s e d o uto fthe i r l i ne o fs i g ht, pick ed up som e r equi si ti on for m s that were next to Lindberg ’ s d ictati on m achi ne, and l eft. A ccor ding to F r e e d , she w an ted to m inim ize her interrup tion an d l eft th e o ffi c e a s q u i c k l y a s s h e c o u l d

. S h e g e n e r a l l y r e me mber ed the sam e s equence o fev ents, but conte nd ed th at i t occurr ed on Febr uary 10 ratherthan Febr uary 24
. Fr eed den i ed be i ngi n Li ndbe r g ’ s o ffi ce o n the 2 4th. S o meh o w, the di c t a t i o n mac hine wa s t ur ne d o n i n mi dconve rs ati on be tw een Li nd ber g an d M cCann. The ti m es t a m p o n the t a pe

— w hi ch the parti es ackno w l edge cannot be c hanged

— shows that Lindberglas t e nter ed the b arcode f ora new p ati ent at 3 : 17p. m . o n Feb ruar y 2 4. H e di ct at ed i nt o the mach ine f o r j us t unde r t wo mi nutes. A fterLi nd ber g’ s l astse ntence of m edi caldi ctati on, t h er e i s a cl i cki ng so und , and the re cor ding pick s u p a g a i n i n th e mi d d l e o fa s e n t e n c e i n wh i c h M cCa nn i s di scussi ng the che c ks she b ro ught f orLi nd ber g t o sign. M cC an n an d L in d berg say th at som e pre li m inary ple asant ri es to thei r conv er sat i on were not capture d on the r eco rdi ng.N o. 08

- 3420 5 The c o nv er sa ti o n e ve ntua l l y tur ne d t o e ve nt s atthe ho s pi t a l o f whi c h the t wo we r e c r i t i c a l

. Th e tw o disc u ss ed th e re or ga n iza tio n in ra d iolog y a n d w h at it w oul d m ean f orLi nd ber g, and he a ske d M cCann how sh e th o ug htthe o th erdo ct o r s woul d f ar e under the re or gani zati on. M cCann d escr ibed w hat s he sa w as L eu rck’s “p ecking order”

— a s or t o fhi t l i st

— an d Lin d berg was a t th e t o p . B o th Mc C a n n a n d L i n d b e r g c r i t i c i z e d t he tr ustee s a nd es p eci al l y Leurc k. Duri ng the co nver sat i on M cCann rece i ved a cal l o n her cel l phone a n d spok e bri efl y about an ev ent s he was att ending l ate r that day. The c a l l wa s fr o m he r h o me, a nd p ho ne r e c o r ds s how i t wa s p l a c e d a t3 : 2 4 p . m. Atth e e n d o fth e c o n v e r s at i o n, M cCann noted thatshe w as runni ng l ate and need ed to l eave , and the tape r efl ects the sound ofa doorcl osing. S o o n the r ea fte r, Li ndbe r g ’ s di ct at ed r epo r ts , a l o ng w ith th e rec or d ed p riv at e con ve rs at ion , m ad e th eir w ay to an o th erde par tmentf o r t r an sc r i pti o n. The t r an s c r i pt i o ni s twh o l i s tened t o the r e c o r di nge mai l e d F r e e d, expla i ni ng tha t a co nver sat i on cr i ti calo fthe adm i ni str atio n h ad been re cor ded

. The tr anscr i pti oni st ass um ed that Lindberghad f or go tte n to tur n offhi s di ctat i on m achi ne . ( Th e de f e nd a nt s p o i nto uttha tLind b e r gh ad o cc as i o na l l y f ai l ed to tur n off th e m ac hine whenhe fi nish ed d ict at in g, alt h ou gh h e s ay s t h at h ap p en ed o n ly w h en h is d ict at ion m icr op h on e w as br ok en .) F r ee d l i st en ed to the c o nv er sati o n, a dvi se d the tr an sc r i pti o ni stt o t r an sc r ibe i t, a nd, b ec au se she tho ug ht i t i nfl am m ato ry, co ntacte d Leurck. Fr eed told Leurck that Lindberg h ad acci dental l y l eft o n hi s di ctat i on m a-6 N o. 08

- 3420 chi ne and advi sed Leurck to l i ste n to the re cor ding. Leurck then r ead the tr anscr i pt and l i ste ned to th e recor ding. A t a bo ar d m ee tin g he i nfo rm ed the tr ustee s ab o utthe c o nv er sa ti o n. He a l so gave a c o py o fthe t r an script t o o ne t r us te e whi l e an o th erwas pr es en t i n the r o o m . But th e day afte r pl aint i ff s’ co uns elsent the ho spi ta l a l et te r a cc us i ngLe ur cko fi l l eg al l y i nt er ce pting the c onver sat i on ( say i ng nothi ng o f Free d), Leurck e ma i l e d th e t wo t r u s t e e s a n d a s k e d th e m t o r e t u r n t he tr anscrip t iftheyhad i t. Leurckte sti fi ed that he as ked f orthe tr anscr i pt’s r etur n as a m att ero fr outi ne busi ness. I n an e m ai l, Leurck tol d the Ch ai rm an ofthe Board that he tho ught a str ong re sponse w oul d be a pp ro pri ate , an d th at L in d b er g a n d M c C an n “n ee d [ed ] to be p u t in th ei r r es pec ti ve pl ac es . ” The c ha i r m ana dded th atthe re cor ding “m ay be the cr ack i n the doorthatm aybe [Lind berg] has ta lk e d once too m uc h.” N ot long afterw ar d s, L in d b er g’s p riv ileg es atth e h o s p i ta l w er e t er m inated, a nd h e r e mai ns the r e o nl y b y v i r t ue o fa n i nj un cti on e nter ed by the I l l i noi s s tat e co urt in a separ ate l aw sui t. H i s busine ss is dow n, bec ause, he s ays , Leurck tol d ph ysi ci ans no t t o send the ir radio l ogywork to hi m . A s f o r M cCa nn, Le ur cktho ug hts he was meddl i ng an d sp en d in g t oo m u c h ti m e h an gin g a ro u n d th e h os p ital

. H e ba nned her fro m ente ri ng the hos p ita l f oranythi ng o therthan heal thcar e f orher sel fo r a l ove d one. Li nd b e r ga n d Mc C a n n s u e d F r e e d , L e u r c k, t he hospi tal, and the m em ber s o fthe hospi tal ’ s Boar d of Tr us te es unde r th e F ede r al W i r et ap Act and vari o us state l a w s . Th ey asserte d thatFreed i nt en tionally inter-N o. 08

- 3420 7

c e pt e d the i r c o nv e r s a t i o n, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 511( a) ( 1) , and that she di scl ose d the r eco rd in g to Leurck, wh o disc l ose d i t t o the t rust ees , i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 2 511( c)
. They c l ai m ed that Fr eed and Leurck acte d w i thi n the sco pe ofthei r em p loym ent a nd that th e ho spi ta l w as l i ab l e f o r the i r a ct i o ns . I n a ddi ti o n, they ass er ted thatLeurckand the tr ustee s use d the r eco r di ng ’ s co nt en ts t o j us ti fy s an ct i o ni ngLi ndbe r ga nd M cCan n, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 5 1 1 ( d)

. And they al l ege d that a l l o ft h e d efendants knew o r had rea son to know that the r eco rdi ng was m ade unl aw full y, as r equir e d f o r l i a b i l i t y u nd e r s ub s e c t i o ns ( c ) a nd ( d)

. F i na l l y, th ey br ou gh t v ar iou s s ta te law cla i m s n o t atiss u e in th is a p p ea l. The de f en dan ts fi l ed f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, a r g ui ng that Lindbergand M cC ann l acke d evi dence thatFr eed ha d e nt er ed Li ndbe r g ’ s o ffi ce o n the da te i n que st i o n. The de f en dan ts ’ a r g um en t r es te d l ar g el y on th e pl ainti ff s’ i ni ti alc o nfus i o n abo utthe da te o fthe r ec o r ded co nver sat i on: befor e the pl ai nti ff s had acc ess to the re cordingand i ts date s tam p, theytho ught that the r ecor ded co nver sat i on m ay ha ve occur re d on Fe bruar y 1 0, and ha d sai d i n thei r i ni ti aldeposi ti ons that they th ou gh t Freed cam e in that da y. H ow ever, the p lai nt iffs re sp on d ed t o t h e s u m m ar y jud gm en t m ot ion w ith ad d iti o na l affi d av i ts , no tingtha t ba se d o n n ew e vi den ce a nd re f re shed re col l ecti on

— e. g. , the date o n the re cor ding, as w ellas t h e ch ecks Lin d berg signed and M cC an n’s ph o ne r e c o r ds

— they re al i zed thatthe conve rs ati on they re m em ber ed, al ong w i th Fr eed’ s i nter rupti on, o ccurred on t h e 24th r atherthan the 1 0th. The defendants m ove d8 N o. 08

- 3420 to strike the ne w affidav its, c ont en d ing tha t the y w ere i m properat tem pts to r ehabi l i tat e deposi ti on t est i m ony. The distr ict cour t di d not e xpli ci tl y r ule o n the m oti on t o s t r i k e , b u ti tf o u n d the d i s p u t e ab o u tth e d a t e s i mm at er i al

. The c o urt g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o r the defe nd ants on the W i re tap A ct c ounts and d ecl i ned to ex er c i s e s u p p l e me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e r e ma i n i ng sta te l aw co unts. The co urt’ s o rdero n su m m ar y j ud gm en t was b as ed l ar g el y o n i nfer en ce s d r awn fr o m the re c or d in g its elf. T h e d ist ric t c o u rtex p lain ed th at although the r eco rdi ng di d not r efl ect th e pl eas antr i es that Lindbergand M cCann sa i d they exchanged bef or e di scussi ng the check s, as o n e w oul d expect i t t o i fLi nd ber g had si m plyf ai l ed to tur n offthe dict ati on m achi ne wh en M cCann enter ed, thatdi d not pro ve that F r ee d tur ne d o n the m ach in e. I ns te ad, i t dee m ed th e pla i nti ff’ s i nfe re nces “m eta physi caldoubt. ” The di str i ct cou rt conc lud ed that the recor d in g sup p orted Freed ’s te st i mo n y th a ts h e d i d n o ttu r n o n th e ma c h i n e , a n d th us th at th er e was no i nt en ti o na l i nt er ce pti o n, an el ement n ec es sa ry to su p p or t t h e W ire ta p A c t c laim s a ga in st all ofthe defe nd ants. The plai nt i ff s m o ve d f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n, whi chthe di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed. T he co ur t r ei te r at ed th atthe abse nce o fM cCann and Li nd ber g’ s g re eting s was i nsi gnific an t, specul ati ng tha t Li nd ber g c oul d have r esum ed dict ati ng w h il e M cCann p ro du ced the checks but then fai led to tu rn off th e m ach ine a seco n d t im e. T he cou rt also noted t h e a bsen ce of any sou nd refl ectin g Freed ’s ex i t a ft e r s he pu r po r t e dl y t ur ne d o n the mac hine , o b-N o. 08

- 3420 9

ser vi ng tha t when M cCann left, the cl osing doorwas au dibl e. Final l y, i t thought that the i nter rupti on i n re cordi ngb etwee n Li ndbe r g ’ s di ct at i o n a nd M cCa nn’ s voi ce in m i d-se ntence did notsupport the pl ai nti ff s’ ar gum ent that there was a b re ak between the re cor ded di ct at i o n a nd th e re co r ded pr i va te c o nv er sa ti o n. M cCa nn a nd Lind b e r ga pp e a l e d.

II . A n alysis The pla i nti ff s’ fi rs t, and m ostsi gni fi cant, ar gum ent o n a p p e a l i s th a ta ma t e r i a l i s s u e o ff a c tp r e c l u d e d s u mm ar y j ud gm ent o n w hetherFr eed i ntenti onal l y r eco rded thei r conve rs ati on. I n shor t, theyco ntend that they know the date and ti m e when the r eco rdi ng o fthe pri vate co nv er sa ti o n s ta r te d, the y k no w the thr ee pe o pl e who wer e i n the r o o m dur i ngth e di ff er en t par ts o fthe c o nver sat i on, and si nce al l thr ee ofthem deny turni ng o n the m achi ne, ther e i s a n i ssue off act as to w ho di d so. The defe nd ants ra i se a pre l i m i naryquesti on: wh eth er w e can cons ider th e affidav its from M cC an n an d Lin d berg sugge sti ng tha t three peopl e were i n the ro om . They ar g ue tha t th e o nl y e vi d en ce o fF r ee d’ s pr es en ce o n the 24 th, a s o ppo se d t o the 1 0th, a r e th e affi dav i ts tha t th e pla i nti ff s su bm i tte d i n re sponse to sum m ar y j ud gm ent. I n thei r vi ew tho se affi davi ts shoul d be disr eg ar ded as contr adic ti ng ea rl i erdeposi ti on t est i m ony. T h e def endants poi nt t o case s s ayi ng tha t a pl ai nti ffcannot m an u fac tu re an iss u e o f fac t b y s u b m itt in g a n affid av it th atc o nt r adi ct s pr i o r s wor n t es ti m o ny . The r ule defen dants se ek to apply i s desi gned to avo i d s h am f actual10 N o. 08

- 3420 i ss ue s an d pr ev en t par ti es from takingb ac kc o nc es si o ns tha t l a t e r prove i l l

- a dv i s e d. Bank o f Il l i noi s v. Al l i e d S ignal Sa fety R estrain t Sy s. , 75 F.3d 1162, 1168 -70 (7th Cir . 1 996); see Co m m ercia l U nd erw riters Ins. C o . v. Aires E n v ir. Servs. L TD , 25 9 F. 3d 792, 79 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. But i t a pp l i es w h en th e c h an ge is in c re d ible an d u n ex p lain ed

. Patt on v. M FS/Sun Li

feFin. D is tr ib. , Inc. , 48 0 F.3 d 478, 48 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. I n c o nt r as t, whenthe c ha ng e i s plausibl e an d “the pa r tyo ff er s a su i tabl e ex pl an at i o n s uch a s ‘ co nfu sio n, m ist ak e, or la p se in m em or y,’ ” a ch an ge in t es tim ony aff ects o nl y i ts cre dibi l i ty, n ot i ts adm i ssibi l i ty. C o m m ercia l U nd erw riters , 2 5 9 F
. 3 d a t7 9 9 ( q u o t i ng M al dona do v

. U
. S. Bank, 186 F.3d 759 , 769 (7th C ir. 1999)); Patt on , 48 0 F
. 3d at 488. W e a gr ee w i th th e d ist ric t c ou rtto th e e x te n t t h at it fou n d th e c o n fu s i on ab ou t t h e d at es to be im m at er ial. The a ffi dav i ts do no t co nt r adi ctthe subst an ce o fthe p r i o r t es ti m o ny

— th a tF r e e d e n t e r e d th e o ffi c e d ur i ng the pl ai nti ff s’ co nver sat i on

— and even i f t h ey ar e co ntra
dict or y, the pla i nti ff s hav e o ff ered a s uit abl e e xplanati on. The co ntra dict i on i s o nl y a s t o the s peci fi c date th at these ev ents occur re d, a m att erthatnatur ally m i ght b e di ffi cul t t o pinpoi n t without a cces s t o the r ec or ding i tse l f

. M or e i m port antl y, M cCann, Lindberg, an d ev en Fre ed all rem em b er e d t h at atso m e p oin t in F eb r ua r y , F r ee d wal k ed in to Li ndbe r g ’ s o ffi ce whi l e he w as ta lkin g t o M c C an n an d p ick e d u p p ap er s fro m h is de sk . Th e pl ai nti ff s i ni ti al l y thought that these eve nts o cc ur r ed F eb r ua r y 1 0, the da y M cCa nn l o sthe r j o b, b ut when th eywer e de po se d b o thb ec ame u nc er ta i n a nd no ncom m i tta l a b ou t the date and thought they m i ght ha veN o. 08

- 3420 11

N ei t he r par t y has ra i s ed or addre s s ed t he i s s ue of whethe r t he 1 f ede ra l W i reta p A c tr equi re s pr oofthatthe i nt er c ept i on or (co n tin u ed ...) ta l k ed o n F eb r ua r y 2 2. Af te r th ey l ea r ne d tha t th e t i mes t a m p on the r e c o r di ngs ho we d tha ti twa s ma de on F ebr uary 24 , thatthe checks di scusse d i n the re c or d in g w er e s ign ed on th e 2 4t h , a n d t h at th e p h on e c all M c C an n to ok w as p lac ed on th e 2 4t h, i t w as rea so n ab le f o r the m t o c o nc l ude thatthe y ha d b ee n mi st ak enabo ut th e d ate of the con versat ion, an d the d ate of the interru p ti on a s wel l

. I nd eed, Fr eed her sel fal so had tro u b le re cal l i ng the date she wal ked i nto Lindberg ’ s o ffi ce; sh e fi r sts ai d i t w as F eb r ua r y 3 a nd the n, a fte r c o nsul ti ng the o bi tuar y o fhergr andfather (w h o passed aw ay aro u n d th at tim e), ch an ge d h er m in d an d sa id the date was Feb ruar y 1 0. A t ba se, there i s no thi ng r em ar kabl e about havi ng di ffi cul ty re m em b er i ng, o r re memb e r i ngi nc o r r e c t l y, the da t e tha ta n e v e nto c c ur r e d, an d no th i ngi nhe r en tl y unb el i ev ab le ab o utc o r r ec ting i t a fterco nsul ti ng o therev i dence. Acce ptingthe pl aint i ff s’ a ffida vi ts , we tu r n t o the questi on wh etheran i ssue ofm ate ri alf act precl ud ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n any ofthe W ire tap A ct c l ai m s. The W i re tap A ct pr ohibi ts i ntenti onal l y inter cepti ng an o r alc o nversati o n, 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 51 1( a) , a s wel l a s i nt en ti o na l l y di sclo singo r us i ngthe c o nt en ts o fs ucha c o nv e r s a t i o n wh i l e h a v i n gr e a s o n t o k n o w th a ti twa s u n l a wfu lly in te rc ep te d , 18 U .S.C . § 25 11 (c ), (d ); se e N ix v. O ’M alley , 16 0 F
. 3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 8 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. Ne c e s s a r y t o a l l o f 112 N o. 08

- 3420

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 d isc l o su re o ccu rred in or thro u g h th e m ean s of interstate co m m er ce . It se em s th a t it w o u ld

. S ee D oe v. S m ith , 429 F. 3d 706, 709 ( 7th Cir

. 2005)
. Ifthe Lanier dic tating s yst em ( the sys tem Lind berg u sed ) tr ansm it s data through the i nter net or t el ephone l i ne s , f or e xa m ple, o r i fFr ee d t ra ns m i t t ed the r ec or di ng vi a m ai l o r e-m ai l t o the CEO ofthe ho s pi t al, the Boar d of D ir ect ors, o r anyon e el se , the i nter st ate com m erc e re quirem ent w il l have b een m et. The d efendan ts have not ques ti oned the use ofthe W ir etap Act n o r i ts cons ti tuti onali ty. ( N ote that if F reed w ishes to ch allen g e the con stitutio na lity o f the A ct, s he woul d ne ed t o a l er tthe di s t ri c tc our tan d ar ra nge f or notice t o be given to the Attorney General so that the federal g ov ern m en t m ay interv en e to d efend the leg islation ifit s o desir es . See i d. ; 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 4 0 3 ( a ) ; F e d. R. Ci v. P
. 2 5 ( c ) )
. As ne i the r p art y ha s r ai s ed the i s s ue bef or e us , we ne ed n ot r e s ol ve i th e r e , bu tfl a g i tf orr e s ol ut i ono n r e m a nd

. the pl a i nt i ff s ’ c l a i ms, the n, i s a n i nt e nt i onal i nt e r c e pti on. But the pla i nti ff s nee d not pro du ce di re ct e vi dence ofthe i nten tio nal i nter cepti on; f oro ften the o nl y way to prove thata ste al thy inter c epti on o ccurr ed i s thro ugh c irc u m st an tia l ev id en c e. SeeD irec tTV v. Web b , 54 5 F. 3d 837, 844 (9th C ir. 2008). I n deter m i ni ng i fther e was an i ssue ofm ate ri alf act o n th e i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r c e p t i o n e l e me n t, th e c o u r tv i e ws th e r e c o r d i n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n - mo v i ng p arty, an d d raw s all reason able inferenc es in th a t p a r ty’s fav or . A nders on v. L ibe rty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U.S

. 24 2, 25 5 (19 86 ); A nto netti v . Abb o tt La bs. , 56 3 F.3 d 587, 59 1 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 9 )
. Th e c o ur t may no t we i g h the e v i de nc e o rN o. 08

- 3420 13 d ec id e w h ich te st im on y is m or e c re d ible

. Ande rs on , 47 7 U
. S. at25 5; Kodi s h v

. O akb r ook Te r r ac eFi r ePr ot e cti on D is t. , 604 F. 3d 490, 507 ( 7th C ir. 2010); P a yn e v. P a uley , 33 7 F.3d 767, 770 (7th C ir. 2003). E ven if o ne side’s story i s m o r e b e l i e v a b l e , the c o ur tmus t“ a v o i d[ ] the t e mp tation to d e c id e w hich pa rty’s version of th e facts is m ore l i kel y t rue. ” Payne, 37 7 F.3 d a t 7 70 ; K o dish , 60 4 F
. 3d at 50 7. “As we ha ve sa i d m an y ti m es , su m m ar y j udg m en t cannot be use d to re sol ve sw ear i ng co ntest s be tw een l i ti gants
. ” Payne, 37 7 F
. 3d at 770. H er e, the pla i nti ff s t est i fi ed that they d id nottur n on th e di ct at i o n mach i ne tha t r ec o r ded th ei r pr i vate c o nve rsati on, but that du ri ng the i r conve rs ati on F re ed w al ked i n and pic ke d u p pap er s a dj acent to the m achi ne, gi vi ng her e as y a cces s t o i t. That t est i m ony, w hen coupl ed w i th the fa cts that the m achi ne was turned o n i n act ual m i d-co nver sat i on, and that Fr eed d isl iked L in d berg’s w ork at the h osp ital an d therefore had rea son to d iscredi t hi m , pro vi des ci rcum sta nti al ev i den ce tha t F r ee d de l ibe r at el y tur ne d o n the r ec o r di ng equi pm en t to c ap tu r e th e unfl at te r i ngc o nv er sa ti o n. Freed doe s not d ispu te som e elem en ts of this story

— sh e r ec al l s en te r i ngLi nd berg’ s o ffi ce whi l e he was s pea k i ng to M c C an n an d p ick in g u p a st a c k of fo rm s im m ed iat ely ne xtt o Lind b e r g ’ s di c t a t i o n mac hine . F r e e d j us tdeni es th ati t ha ppen ed on th e 24 th, a nd de ni es tha t sh e i nt en ti onal l y turned on the di ctat i on m achi ne wh i l e s he was th er e. Buttha t l ea ve s us wi thc o nfl i ct i ngt es ti m o ny on a ce nt r ali ss ue

— i n other w or ds, a sw ear i ng co ntest
. F ur th er m o r e, the r ec o r di ngdo es notc o nt r adi ctthe pl a i nt i ff s ’ v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y , a nd , v i e we d mos t f av-14 N o. 08

- 3420

o r ab l y to the pl aint i ff s, pr o vi des s o m e su ppo r t f o r i t. The d i st r i ctc o ur t th o ug htthe r ec o r di ngf av o r ed F r eed ’s sto ryi n partbec au se the r eco rdi ng r efl ects the sound of a door cl osing wh en M cCann le ft, but not w hen Fr eed woul d ha ve l eft. Butno th i ngi n the r ec o r d t el l s us w hetherthe doorco uld have bee n cl ose d si len tly; M cCann sai d she w as in a h urr y when she l eft a nd m ay ha ve l etthe d oor s l am, wher ea s F r ee d, who was c o nsc i o us tha t sh e was i nt r udi ng( an d, pe r ha ps, that sh e w as be i ng t a pe d) may ha v e c l o s e d the do o r s o ft l y t o be i nc o ns pi cuo us . Vi ewe d i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the pla i nti ff s, th e absence o fso und does notpro ve Fr eed c or re c t
. Inad d itio n, th e p lain tiffs p oin t o u t t h at if Li nd bergha d a cc i den ta l l y l eft th e m ac hi ne o n, a s th e defen dan ts s ug g es t, i t pr es um ab l y woul d ha ve cau g ht th eir conve rs ati on f ro m the beginning. Bu t i nstea d it pi ck s up i n the middl e o fthe c o nv er sa ti o n, s o o ne coul d i nfe r th at it w as offbut then s om eone tur ned i t o n du ri n g the co nver sat i on. That i s a r eas onabl e i nfe re nce, and one we m ust cr edi t o n sum m ar y j ud gm ent. W he n r ea son ab l e i nfer en ce s ar e dr awn i n the pl ainti ff s’ f avo r, ther e i s a n i ssue o fm ate ri alf act as to w h et h erFr eed i ntenti onal l y inter cepted the pla i nti ff s’ conve rs ati on under 1 8 U.S

. C. § 25 11(a) ( 1)
. That i ssue of f act preclu d es sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the § 2 511( a) ( 1) cl ai m ag ai nst F re ed. Ital so precl ud es sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the § 2 511(b) cl ai m a ga in st her

— that she “ discl ose d” or“use d” the c onte nts o fthe c onver sat i on

— be ca us e F r ee d a dm i tt ed th atshe di st r ibut ed th e tr an sc r i pt an d r ec o r di ng. As f o r the c l ai m a g ains t th e hospi talbas ed on F reed ’s conduct, si nce the hos pit alN o. 08

- 3420 15 d oe s n ot arg u e o n ap p ea l t h at res p on d ea t s u p er ior is in ap p lica b le, th at cla im is av aila b le on rem an d as w ell. T he clai m s against the rem aining d efend an ts are an othe r matt er . Ev eni fF r ee d i l l eg al l y made th e re c or d in g, L eu rc k a n d th e t ru st ee s c ou ld be li a b l e o n ly i fthe y h a d r e a s o n t o k no w the r e c o r di ngwa s ma de i l l ega l l y a nd theyused o r disc l os ed the re cor ding. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t addr es s th e defen dan ts ’ a r g um en ts o n tho se po i nt s, b uttha t do es no t pr ec l ude us f ro m sust ai ni ng the j ud gm ent b ase d on tho se ar gu m en ts. Se eWi s co ns i n Ce nt
. , Lt d. v. Sh ann on , 539 F. 3d 751, 76 1 (7th C ir. 2008). T o b e l i ab l e unde r § 2 51 1( c) o r § 2 51 1( d) , a de f en dan t m ust know o r have re as on to know “’ suf fi ci ent f acts concerni ng the ci rcum sta n c es ofthe i nter cepti on s uch that the defendant[ ] co uld, with pr esum ed knowle dge ofthe law , deter m i ne thatthe i nter cepti on was pro hibi ted i n l i ght of [ the W i re ta p A ct]
. ’ ” N ix , 16 0 F
. 3d at 349- 50 (q u ot i ng Tho m pso n v . D ula ney, 97 0 F
. 2d 744, 74 9 ( 10 thCi r . 1992) )
. I t i s no t en o ug h t o k no w tha t th e conve rs atio n w as i nter cepted; the defe nd ant m ust a l so be abl e to t el l tha t no ne o fth e s ta tu to r y e xc ept i o ns ap p ly. S e eWi l l i a ms v . Po ul os , 1 1 F. 3d 271, 284 (1st C ir. 19 93 ); Thom ps on , 97 0 F
. 2d at 7 49. I fthe defe nd ant doe s kn ow th e in te rc ep tio n w as illega l, th en h e is l i a b le if he “ us es ” o r “di sc l o se s” t o o th er s th e co nt en ts o fthe re cor ded co nver sat i on. 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2511 ( c) , ( d), 25 20. Leu r ckt es ti fi ed th atF r ee d t o l d hi m tha t the r ec o r di ng w as m ad e b ec au se L in d b e r g for go t t o t u rn off h is dict ati on m achi ne ( aga i n ), and i fthati s a l l Leurck k ne w, th en he ha d no r ea so n to th i nk th at the re co r di ng16 N o. 08

- 3420 vi o l at ed th e st atut e, which do es no t co ve r i na dve r te nt in te rcepti ons. The pl ai nti ff s a rg ue thatLeurckm ust hav e known thatthe re cor d in g w as unlawfulbec ause Leurck a s k e d t wo t r us t e e s t o r e t ur n the co py o fthe t r a ns c r i pt he had g i ven them

. Bu t as the defe nd ants poi nt ou t, th at w as aft er th e p lain tiffs ’ co u n se l s e n t t h e h os p ita l a l et te r a cc us i ngLe urc k of i l l eg al l y i nt er ce ptingthe c o nver sat i on. I n l i ght o fthe l ett erit is unsurpri si ng tha t Leurck ask ed f or the tr anscr i pt back : as a CE O fa ced w i th an a l l e g a t i o n o fi l l e g a l i t y , e v e n o ne h e ma y h ave thought w as unfo und ed, i t was prudent f orhi m to avo i d exposi ng the hospita l to furtherpote nti all i abi l i ty by ensu rin g that the tr anscr i pts were not diss em i nated to a n yone el se. I nfe rr i ng fro m thi s co nd uct that Leurc k m us t ha ve k no wn th e r ec o r di ngwas i l l eg alwoul d put hi m o n a r azo r’ s ed ge: r i ski ng l i abi l i ty i n the f or m o fan i nfe re nce o fgui l t if he se eks to co ntai n any dam age , an d r is k ing ad d iti ona l li abili ty from the tran script ’s fu rt h er d ist rib u tio n if h e d oe s n ot
. S e e, e . g. , Be ckv. D ob r owsk i , 5 59 F.3d 68 0, 68 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Armst r ong v. LaSa ll e B ankNat’l Ass’ n , 44 6 F
. 3d 728, 73 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 0 6 ) ; Flanaga n v. Ashcroft, 31 6 F
. 3d 728, 73 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 03 ). Th at L eu rc k e m aile d th e t ru s t ee s t h is re quest m ake s i t e ven m or e f ar - f etche d that he was tr yi ng to co verhi s t ra cks

— a pre sum abl y s ophis ti cate d C EO woul d k no w b et te r th an to “c o ve r up” a p urp or te d ly illeg al re c or d in g b y c re at in g a n ele c tr on i c tra il ofthe cove r- up . On sum m ar y j ud gm ent we m ake r eason able inferen c e s in th e plaintiff s’ f avor, but L eu rck’s re quest f orthe tr anscr i pt i s t oo thi n a r eed o n w hi ch to ba se a r ea so nable i nfer en ce tha t he k ne w the r ec o r di ng wa s i l l e g a l l y o b t a i ne d.N o. 08

- 3420 17 T h e p lain tiffs als o s ee m to s u g g es t in th eir rep ly b rie f t h at the l ett eri tse l fga ve Leurck a r eas on t o know that the r ecordi ng was i l l ega l

. But the l ett erpro vi des o nl y a b al d a l l eg at i o n a nd no c o nc r et e f ac ts , l eta l o ne f ac t s th a tL e u r c kwa s r e q u i r e d t o b e l i e v e , t o u n d er m i ne h is b elie fth at th e re c or d in g w as m ad e a c c id en ta lly. See N ix , 16 0 F
. 3d at 349- 50. I nd eed, the l ett eracc uses him ofi nter cepti ng the co nver sat i on, and si nce he kn ew that he di d not d o s o ( n o o n e s u g g e s t s n o w th a th e wa s the i nter ceptor ) i t i s di ffi cul t t o see how he coul d have gl eaned thato ne o fhi s e m plo yee s s urr ept iti ousl y turned on Li nd ber g’ s di ctat i on m achi ne. A s for th e trus t e es, in the ir brief th e plaintiff s iden tify onl y o ne, M oham m ed Razvi, wh o they conte nd had re aso n to kno w the co nver sat i on was r eco rded i l l ega l l y. The y e xp l a i n tha t M c Ca nn t e s t i fi e d tha t Ra z v i s a i d t o her that the r eco rdi ng wa s illeg al

. But, as the defe nd ants po i nt o ut, i t i s i m m at er i ali fRa zv i k ne w, b ec au se the plain ti ff s a gr eed i n thei r sta tem ent o fundisputed f acts th atRa zv i di d no t us e o r di sc l o se the t r an sc r i pt o fthe c on ve r s a tio n . A c c or d in gly , Ra zv i co u ld n ot be liab le un d er § 2511(c) or § 2511 (d). The g r an t o f summ ar y j udg m en t f o r Le ur cka nd the tr ustee s i s A FFI RMED . The g r an t o fsum m ar y j udg m en t f orFr eed and the hospi tali s V ACATED , a n d th e c as e is R EMAND ED f or fu rther proce edi ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

9- 13- 10