The H o norable W il li am T. Law rence , Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Co ur tJ udg e f orthe S ou the r n Di s t r i c to fI nd i a na , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 06

- 3427 N ICH O LAS N ARDUCCI, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G REG O RY M OO RE an d D ONAL D L E MM, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 01 C1425

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge
.
A RGUED M AY 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 9, 2009

Befo reF L AUM an d W IL L IA MS, C ircu itJudges , and L AWREN CE, D is tri ctJudge .  F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . N i c h o l a s N a r d u c c i, a to n e t i me th e c o mpt r o l l e r f o r th e V i l l a g e o fB e l l wo o d , i s s u i ng2 N o. 06

- 3427 the Vi l l age , the f or m erm ayo r, and the pol i ce c hi eff or v i o l a t i ngh i s F o ur th Am e nd men tr i g ht s a nd the F ourt h A m endm ent r i ghts of o therpl ai nti ff s in thi s cl ass act i on su i t bys ur r ept i ti o us l y r ec o r di ngpho ne c al l s f r o m the vi l l age ’ s fi nance depart m ent. H e i s s uingunder 42 U.S. C

. § 19 83 a nd Ti tl e I I I, a fede r als ta tu te pr o hibi ting go ve rn m en t o fficia l s f ro m int er c ep tin g w ire or ele c tr on ic com m un ications. Th e d efend an ts m oved f or sum m ary j u d gm en t in th e d ist ric t c ou rt, w h ich w as gra n te d in par t a nd de ni e d i n pa r t
. Th e y no w a pp e a l the de ni a l o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent, ar gui ng tha t they a re e n tit l ed to quali fi ed i m m unity on both the § 1983 and Titl e I I Icl ai m s. Fo r th e fo llow in g re as on s, w e a ffirm th e d ist ric t c ou rt
.

I . B a c kg r o und I n 199 3, J oe Lagen, the com ptro l l ero f t h e V i l l age o f Bel l w oo d, beg a n t o wo r r y a b o ut i ra te re si dents thre ate ni ng em plo yee s o fthe vi l l age ’ s fi n an ce depar tm ent o ver the phone ( usual l y b ecause the re si dents had f ai l ed to pa y the i r ut i l i tyb il ls a nd ha d s ee n the c i tys hut off th eir w at er se rv ice ). A n d th at w as n otL ag en ’s o n ly w or ry . H e was al so concerned about fi n ance depar tm en t em p loyees m aking p erson al call s on t he vil lage’s ti m e an d o verthe vi l l age ’ s phone l i nes. Lagen propos ed to the v i l l ag e’ s bo ar d oftr us te es ata “pr e-bo ar d” m ee ting that the v i l l age r eco rd cal l s t o and fr om the fin an ce depar tment on the s ame s y st em us ed to r ec o r d c al l s to the pol i ce a nd fi re departm ents. “Pre

-boar d” m eet i ngs, wh i ch w er e usuall y a tte nd ed by Bel l w oo d’s m ayo r ( Do n ald L em m ) , the boar d oftr ustee s,N o. 06

- 3427 3 the v i l l age at torney a nd the villa ge cl er k, were a com m on m eans by w hi ch the boar d oftr ustee s cl ar i fi ed its agend a in a d van ce of the tw ice-m ont hly board m eet i ngs a nd hear d proposa l s; i t was un u su al, but not unhe a r d o f, f o r the b o a r d t o a do ptp o l i c y a ta “ pr e -b o a r d” m eet i ng . The bo ar d oftr ustee s a pp ar entl y a gr eed to Lagen’ s pro posalatthe m eet i ng, and author i zed hi m to begin re cor ding the fi nance depart m ent t el ephone l i n es. L em m sup p orted the ide a as w ell, h a v in g recen tly heard som e com pla i nts about fi nance departm ent e m plo yee s bei ng r ud e t o re si dents ca l l i ng the vi l l age . The boa rd r equested that the Bel l w oo d Em er gency Te l eph o ne Syst em Bo ar d, the b o ar d o ve r se eingthe vi l l ag e’ s 91 1 o per at i o ns , c onn ec t th e fi na nc e depa r tment phone l i nes t o the r eco rdi ng sy ste m f orem er ge ncy ca l l s. B ellw oo d es ta b lish ed an em er ge n c y t ele p h on e s ys t e m in 19 90 a nd the po l i ce de par tmentr ec o r ded ca l l s to the sy st em. La g ens en t Gar y M od row, a s er g ea nti n the l oca l pol i ce for ce a nd the chai r oft h e E m er gencyTel ephone Sy ste m Boar d, a m em o on J anuary4, 19 94, i nstr ucti ng hi m to add fi ve phone l i nes from the fi nance depart

m ent t o the e m er gencyr ecord in g s yst em . M odro w as ked a te ch ni ci anfr o m Di ct aph o ne , the manuf ac tu r ero fthe vi l l age ’ s r eco rdi ng sy ste m , to co nnect t h ose phone l i nes. T he proc ess w as com p leted abou t thirty d ays later. N ar d ucci co ntends thatthe vi l l age di d not pos t no ti ces o n o r n e a r th e p h o n e s a l e r t i n gfi n a n c e d e p a r t me n te m-4 N o. 06

- 3427

For hi s part, L agen c l ai m ed i n de pos i t i on t es t i m ony thathe 1 gav e a m em o to the aff ect ed em ployees le tt ing them know that the v illag e ha d b eg u n re cor d ing the p ho ne lines in th e d ep artm ent and thathe dis cuss ed this w ith them i n f ace- to- f ace me e t i n g s . B e c a u s e th e c a s e i s b e f o r e u s o n a p p e a l fr o m a m ot i on f or su m m ar y j udgm en t, we t ake the f ac t s i n the l i ght m o st fa v o ra b le to N a rd u cc i. pl o y e e s tha tthe v i l l a g e wa s r e c o r di ngthe i r p ho ne c al l s. 1 The v i l l ag e cl ai m s, ho wev er, tha t us er s o fthe ph one sy st em he ar d a n a udibl e be ep when th ey bega n us i ng one ofthe re cor ded l i nes. N ar du cci, ci ti ng deposi ti on tes ti m ony f ro m M odro w , counter s that the beep t one w as el i m i na te d a nd tha t he , at l ea st, ne ve r he ar d i t when us i ng th e a ffecte d ph one l i nes. I t a pp ear s that Lage n never l i ste ned to any ofthe cal l s to check up on thre ats to departme n te mp l o y e e s o r mi s u s e o fth e v i l l a g e ’ s p h o n e s y s t e m, and Lem m never f ol l owed

- up with the fi nance depart

m ent r ega rdi ng thr eat s fro m custo m er s o r in sta nces of rude be havi orfro m em plo yee s. I n Mar ch1 99 6, Gr eg o r y M o o r e r epl ac ed Ro be r t F r as co ne as th e ch iefof th e vil lage ’s police dep artm en t. M oore l ea r ne d b efo r e t ak i ngo ffi ce tha t th e vi l l ag e was r ec o r di ng p h on e lin es in th e fin an c e d ep ar tm en t, bu t d id n otinv es tig at e th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th e r e c o r d i n g a n d t o o k no ste ps to di sco nnect the Di ctaphone f ro m the phone l i nes unti l N ar du cci, Lagen’ s s uccess oras c om ptro l l er, as ked hi m to
. M oo re ar gued i n the dist ri ct c ourt t h at h e had n o au th or i ty to disc onnect the phone l i nes, al though Frasco ne a nd Le m m c l ai m ed i n de po si ti o n t es ti m o ny tha th e di d.N o. 06

- 3427 5 N ar du ccito ok ove r as B ell w oo d’s com ptro l l eri n 199 7 o r 1 9 9 8 , r e pl a c i ng La g e n. He s a y s tha t whe n he t o o ko ver he ha d no i dea tha t B el l woo d was r ec o r di ngthe pho ne l i nes in hi s depart m ent. Bel l w oo d is a s m al l uni ncor pora t e d c o mm un i t y j us t we s t o f Ch i c a g o , a nd do es not em plo y a full

- ti m e co m ptro l l er ; N ar du cciwas si m ult aneo us l y wor k i ngf o r o th erne arbyc o m m uni ti es a nd usual l y s pent onl y a few days a week i n Bel l w oo d. W hen he was i n Bel l w oo d, he fre quent ly used the phone l i nes i n the fi nanc e d epart m ent b oth f orBel l w oo d-r el ate d calls an d also to m ake call s related to confiden tial m atters for ot h er cit ies . N ar d u c c i cla im s t h at h e w ou ld u su ally w or k a t whateverdesk i n the fi nance departm en t was open, but th at f orco nfi denti alm att er s he soughta l ess cro w ded pl ace to m ake hi s ca l l s. N ar ducc i l earned tha t Bel l woo d was r ec o r di ngthe phone l i nes in the fi nance depart m ent in a m eet i ng o n F eb r ua r y 2 8, 2 00 0. Nar ducc i no ti fi ed tw o t rust ee s o fthe vi l l ag e th athe thou gh t t he t apingwas i l l eg al, a l er te d the F B Iand the sta te’s attorn ey, an d w rote a m em o to M oore dir ecting hi m to stop the re cor ding. A fterse nd i ng tha t m emo, Nar ducc i c o nt i nue d t o make pho ne c al l s o n the fi na nc e depa r tmentpho ne l i ne s butus ed hi s ce l l phone f oral l co nfi denti alcal l s. M oo re i nstr ucted M odro w to di sco nnect the fi na n ce d ep artm en t ph one l in es from the D ictap hon e record er. M oo re bel i eve d that the phone l in es w er e di sco nnected i n M ar ch 200 0. M odro w , o n the othe r ha n d , s ai d that he b el i ev ed th e pho ne s wer e st i l l c o nne ct ed when he l eft Bel l w oo d i n Feb ruar y 2 002.6 N o. 06

- 3427 I n F eb r ua r y 2 00 1, Nar ducci fi l ed a l aws ui t ag ains t th e V i l l a g e o fB e l l wo o d , Mo o r e , L e mm, a n d v a r i o u s u n k n o wn tr ustee s a nd em p loy ee s o fthe vi l l age . H e l ate r dism i sse d the c l ai m s a gai nst the unnam ed tr u ste es and em plo yee s, but pro ceeded w i th the cas e a gain st the three nam ed defe nd ants, and l ate r had his sui t ce rt i fi ed as a cl ass acti on o n behal fo fo therem plo yee s o f the fi nance depart

m en t whos e p hon e ca l l s wer e r ec o r ded. The s ui t br o ug ht cl ai m s unde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 a nd Ti tl e I I Io fthe Om nibus Cri m e Contr oland Sa fe S tr eet s Act o f 1 96 8 fo r, r especti vel y, vi ol ati ng his Fo urth Am endm ent r i ght no t t o be subj ecte d to i l l ega l se ar c hes a nd f ori l l ega l wir eta pp i ng. H e a l so bro ught I l l i noi s s tat e l aw cl ai m s un der the Eaves

d ro p p ing Act and a t or t a cti on fori ntrudi ng o n a pl ace of seclusion. Lem m and M oore m oved f or sum m ary j ud gm ent o n al l cl ai m s, and speci fi cal l y on the gr ound of quali fi ed i m m unity ( al though a s we w ill s ee , ther e’ s a com pli cate d back sto ry to thei r quali fi ed i m m unity cl ai m o n the Tit l e I I Ico unt ). The di str i ct c ourtgr anted su m m ar y j udg m en t o n the s ta te la w cl ai m s an d o n a ny Tit l e I I Icl ai m s inv olvi ng phone ca l l s m ade after N ar du ccil ear ned about the r eco rdin g in Feb ruar y 2 000. The dist ri ct cour t deni ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the § 1 983 cl ai m s a nd the re m ai ni ng T itle II Icl ai m s, fi nd i ng tha t ther e w er e d i sputed i ssues of f act and that the defendants wer e no t en ti tl ed to qua l if ied i m m uni ty
. Le m m a nd M oo re n ow ap p ea l th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d e n i a l of th eir q u alifie d im m u n ity cla im s.N o. 06

- 3427 7 I I . Discussi on W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s su m m ar y j udg m en t d ec isio n d e n ov o. Chakl os v. St e ve ns , 560 F. 3d 705, 71 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is p ro p er w h er e “ th er e is no genuine i s s ue o fma t e r i a l f a c ta nd the mo v i ngp a r ty i s e nti tl ed to a j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56(c). T he d e fend an ts are ap p ealing fr om the d istri ct cou rt’s denia l of qual i fi ed i m m unity. The doctr i ne o fqual i fi ed i m m unity pr ote cts gov er nm ent o ffi ci al s from l aw sui ts f ordam age s when thei r conduct d id n ot vi ol ate “cl ear l y e stabl i shed sta tutor y o r const i tuti onalr i ghts of w hi ch a re aso nabl e per son w oul d have know n. ” H a rlow v . Fitzgerald, 4 5 7 U. S

. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 )

. Th e pu r po s e o f quali fi ed i m m unity i s t o pr ovide re aso nabl e no ti ce t o g o ve r nm en t o ffi ci al s th atc er ta i n co nduc t vi o l at es c o nsti tuti onalr i ghts bef or e a pl ai nti ffcan subj ect them to liab ility

. H o pe v . P elz er, 5 36 U. S

. 7 30 , 73 9 ( 20 02 )

. Re as o nabl e no ti ce doe s no t req u ire thatther e be a case “fund am ental l y s i m i l ar ” t o the pr ese nt ca se, and i nd eed an o ffi ce r c anb e o n n o ti ce th athi s co nduc t vi o l at es c o nst itu tio n al rig h ts ev en in n ov el fa c tu al c irc u m st an c e s . Id. at 74 1 (“ A lth ou g h ea rlier ca se s in vo lvin g ‘fu n d am en ta lly si m i l ar ’ f acts can provi de especial l y s tr ong supp or t f or a co ncl usi on that the l aw i s cl ear l y e stabl i sh ed , they ar e no t nec es sa ry to such a fi nd i ng. The sa m e i s t rue of case s with ‘ m ate ri al l y s i m i l ar ’ f acts
. ”)

. Fo r a r i ght t o be c lea rly es ta b lish ed , “it s con to u rs ‘m u st b e s u fficie n tly cl earthata re aso nab le o ffi ci alwould und er sta nd that w hat he i s doi ng viola te s that r i ght .

. . i n the l i ght o f8 N o. 06

- 3427 pre- exi sti ng la w the unlawful ness m ust be apparent
. ’ ” Id. at 739 ( quoti ng Ande rs on v. Cr e ight on , 48 3 U.S

. 63 5, 64 0 (1987)). W he n ex am ining a qu a lif ied im m un ity cl aim , a court exam i nes whether a co nsti tuti onalr i gh t has bee n v i o l a t e d; a nd the n, i fa c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g htwa s v i o l a t e d, w hetherthe right i n questi on was suffi ci ently wel l es tabli sh ed tha t a reason able officer w ou ld h ave be en aw are of it. S au c i e r v. Ka tz , 53 3 U. S

. 1 94, 2 00 ( 20 01 )

. W e no l onge r need to addres s the two por ti ons ofthe quali fi ed i mmu n i t y a n a l y s i s i n an y s p e c i fi c o r d e r, a n d c a n fr a me our disc ussi on i n the w ay that produces th e c lea re st d ec isio n . Se ePe ars on v. Cal l ahan , 129 S. Ct . 8 08, 821 ( 2009 ). H ere, b e c a u s e d efend an ts argu e tha t N ard uc ci’s Four th A m endm ent ri ghts w er e not vi ol ate d an d that th e v iola tio n oft h i s r igh t w as n ot“c lea rly es ta b lish ed ,” we wi l l c o ns i derb o thi ss ue s i n tur n.

A . Four t h A m end m ent vi ol at i on Lem m and M o o r e fi r s ta r g ue tha tNa r du c c i ’ s § 1 9 83 sui t f ai l s be cause he di d not e stabl i sh a vi ol ati on o fhis Four th A m endm ent r i ghts. 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 i s no t a n i nd ependent so urce ofto rtl i abi l i ty; i nstea d , i t cr eat es a cause of acti on f or “the depri vati on, under co l oro f[ sta te] l aw , of a ci ti zen’ s ri ghts, pri vi l ege s, or im m unit i es se c u re d b y t h e C on st itu tio n an d law s o f th e U n ite d Sta te s.” Le df or d v

. Su l l i van , 1 05 F
. 3d 354 , 3 56 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7)

. The sta tute i s thus a m eans ofvi nd i cating r i ghts secur ed els ew h er e. Id.N o. 06

- 3427 9 Th e u nd e r l y i ngc l a i m i n thi s ca s e i s a F o ur th Am e nd

m en t cl ai m . “ The t o uch st o ne o fF o ur thAm en dm en t i nqui r y i s reaso nabl en es s, a s ta nda r d m ea su r ed i n l i g ht ofthe tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nc es a n d deter m i ned by bal anci ng the d egree to wh i ch a chal l enged ac ti on i ntrudes o n an i nd i vi du al ’ s pri vacyand the degre e t o whi chthe a ct i o n pr o m o te s a leg i ti m at e g o ve r nm en t i nter est
. ” G reen v. B utler, 420 F.3d 689 , 694 (7th C ir. 2005). Th e S up r e me Co ur t ha s he l d tha t the F o ur th A m endm en t appl i es t o “ se ar ch es a nd s ei zu r es b y g o ve r nm en t em p loy er s o r su p e r vis or s o f th e p riv at e p ro p er ty of th eir em plo yee s. ” O ’ Connorv. O r t ega , 480 U
. S. 709, 715 (1987 ). W ith res p ec t t o t h e s c op e o f Fou rt h A m e n d m en t rig h ts in th e wor k pl ac e, ho wev er, the Co ur t adde d tha t “[ t] he op er ati onalr eal i ti es ofthe w or kpl ace . . . m ay m ake s o me em plo yee s’ ex pectat i ons ofpri vacyunrea sonab l e. ” Id. at 717. P ra c ti ces and procedure s o fa parti cul aro ffi ce o r l egi ti m ate r egul ati ons m ay re du ce the e x p ectati on o f pri vacythatgo ver nm ent e m ployee s e nj oy i n thei r w or kp lac e. Id. T h e c ircum stan ces of a particu lar case m atter a gr ea t d ea l, a n d e ac h Fou rt h A m en d m en t c laim in t h is c o nt e xt ha s t o b e e xa mi ne d o n i t s o wn. “ Gi v e n the gr eat va r i ety of w o r ke nv i r o nm en ts i n the pub l i c se ct o r, the questi on wh etheran e m plo yee h as a r eas onabl e e xpectatio n of p riv ac y m u st be ad d re ss ed on a c as e-b y-c as e b as is.” Id. at71 8. Once an em plo yee dem onst ra tes a re aso nabl e e xpectati o n o fpr i va cy, he must th en dem o ns tr at e th atthe se ar chwas unr ea so nabl e. “ [ P] ubl i c empl o y eri nt r us i o ns on the co nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted pri vacyi n ter est s o f10 N o. 06

- 3427 gov er nm ent e m plo yee s f ornon- i nvest i gat or y, workre l a t e d p ur po s e s , a s we l l a s f o r i nv e s t i g a t i o ns o fworkrelated m iscond uc t, sh ou ld be j ud ged by the stan d ard ofr eas onabl eness under al l the ci rcum sta nces. ” Id

. at72 5- 26

. T h i s s t a n d a r d h a s t wo r e q u i r e me n t s : F i r s t, t he se ar chmustha ve bee n “j us ti fi ed ati ts i nc ept i o n, ” an d s e c o nd , i tmus th a v e b e e n “ r e a s o nab l y r e l a t e d i n s c o pe to th e c irc u m st an c es w h ich j u st ified th e in t e r f e r en c e in the fi rs t pl ace. ” Id. at72 6. W e firs t c on sid e r w h et h er N ar d u c c i ha d a re as on ab le ex pec ta ti o n o fpr i va cyin hi s pho ne l i ne . Le m m a nd M oo re ar gue that he did not, f ortw o re aso ns. Fi rs t, they ar gue th at N ar du ccidi d not hav e a r eas onabl e e xpectati on of pri vacy i n a phone l i ne i n the fi nan c e d epart m ent; se co nd, they c ont en d tha t th er e was ne ve r a “ se ar ch ” w i thi n the m eani ng o f the Fo urth Am endm ent b ecause nobody eve r l i ste ned to the c al l s. The dis tr i ct c ourt, ci ti ng Ka tz v . U n i ted S ta tes , 389 U
. S. 34 7, 3 53 ( 19 67) , a no th erc as e i nv o l vings ur r ept i ti o us re cor di ngo fp ho ne c a l l s , f o un d tha tNa r du c c i e nj o y e d a re ason ab le e xpectati on o fpri vacyi n hi s phone l i ne. Lem m and M oo re ar gue that the is sue i s m or e pr eci se, an d t h at i n thi s ca se the s ear ch w as onl y unre aso nable i fN ar du ccihad a r eas onabl e e xpectation of pri vacy when ta l k i ngo n a pho ne l i ne a t wor k

. Accor di ngt o the d efe n d an ts , N ar d u c c i co u ld n oth av e h ad a re as on ab le ex p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y w h en t alk in g on a p h on e lin e in a cr owd ed w or kpl ace, since any one working nea rby coul d eas i l y overhearh i s conver sat i ons. A dd i ti onal l y, they cite M o dr o w’s de po si ti o n t es ti m o ny tha t th e r ec o r di ngN o. 06

- 3427 11 syste m em itted an au d ibl e beep at t h e b e g inn ing of every phone cal l, wh i ch shoul d have l ed user s o fthe sys tem to concl ud e that thei r cal l s were re cor ded

. The exi ste nce ofthatbee p, and w hat ind i catio n i t g ave to fi nance depar tmente m pl o y ee s ab o utthe pri va cyo fthe i r pho ne calls, is d is p u ted ; taking th e facts in the li gh t m ost favorabl e t o N ar du ccias the non- m ovi ng par ty, i t i s no t a basi s f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. I fthe re cor ding proce du re s w er e a s o bvi ous a s L em m and M oo re now cl ai m that they w er e, then the j ury m ay w el l conclud e that Narducci d id n oth av e a su b j ec tiv e e x p ec ta tio n ofp r i v a c y in his p hon e line . Th at is a factu al disp ut e tha t the j ury w il l ne ed to resol ve, how ever. No r c a n th i s c o u r tt a k e a tf a c e v a l u e L e mm an d M oo re ’ s cl ai m thatN ar du ccico uld nothave exp ecte d hi s phone c al l s t o rem ai n pri vate in a cr owd ed w or k a re a. N ar du ccicl ai m ed i n hi s deposi ti on t est i m on y that w hen dis cussi ng a confi d en ti alm att erhe “ w ent t o a pho ne wher e th er e was n’ t a l o t o fpe o pl e wor k i ng nearby. ” I ftr ue, thi s would be suffi ci ent forthe j ury to conc lu de that N ar du ccihad a s ubj ecti ve expectat i on ofpri vacywh en usi ng o ne o fthe vi l l age phone l i nes. L em m a n d M oo re als o a rg u e, h ow ev er , th at ev en if N ar du ccihad a su b j ecti ve expectat i on o fpri vacyi t was n otan ob j ec tiv ely rea so n ab le on e. T h eir co n te n tio n is th at s ocie ty w oul d not r eco gni ze a r eas onabl e e xpectati on o fpri vacyi n a phone li ne pro vi ded by the Vil l age o f Bell woo d f o r pub l i c pur po se s. Underthe i r the o r y, the nee d t o mo ni t o r the e ffi c i e ntp r o v i s i o n o fp ub l i c s e rv i ces m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t a n e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y o n su ch a12 N o. 06

- 3427

T h e d e f e n da nt ’ s L o c a l Ru l e 5 6

. 1 s t a t e me n tc o n t a i n s t wo 2 par agraph s rel evant to thi s dispute. O ne paragraph s tat es thatLag en never l is tene d to any of the rec ordings, and neithe r (co n tin u ed ...) pho ne l i ne . Thi s br o ad ex cl us i o n i s in tens i o n wi thl an guage fro m the O r t ega o pini on r ej ecting such a cat ego ri cal ap p ro ac h to w or kp lac e p riv ac y rig h ts
. Se eO r t ega , 48 0 U
. S. at71 7 ( “Giv en the so ci eta l ex p ectati ons ofpri vacy i n o n e ’ s p l a c e o fwo r ke x p r e s s e d i n b o th O l ivera nd M a nc usi, we rej ect the content i on m ade by the So l i ci tor Generaland peti ti oner s that public em plo yee s ca n n ev er h av e a rea so n ab le e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y in th eir pl ac e o fwor k.” )

. As the Co ur t f o und in O r t ega , the i dea that one coul d conduct confid en ti albusi ness at w or k, and have a n expectat i on o fpri vacywh en doi ng so , i s no t per se unreas onabl e. Lemm a nd M o o r e a l so a r g ue tha t th er e was no “ se ar ch ” he r e w i th i n the mean i ngo fthe F o ur thAm en dm en t be ca us e, whi l e the c all s wer e r ec o r ded, the r e was no ev id en c e t h at an yo n e e v e r liste n ed to th em . Th eir cl ai m he r e i s th ati fno bo dy ever le arne d abo utthe c o ntents o fth e p h on e ca l l s then nobo dy did any thi ng tha t coul d have r un af oulo fthe Four th A m endm ent. N ar du cci argu es th at w e can not cred it this cl aim a t sum m ary j udg m en t be ca us e th er e i s a fa ctua l di spu te abo ut w heth er a n yone l i ste ned to the phone cal l s. N ar du ccihas no t co m e f o r war d with a ny e vi den ce tha t an y o ne list en ed to th e c alls , an d is re ally allu d in g t o t h e p os sibi l i ty ofa f actualdi spute m or e than anythi ng el se. N eve r 2N o. 06

- 3427 13

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 di d any one e l s e i n the fi nan c e depa rt m en t, whi le a s ec ond p a r a g r a p h s t a t e s th a t n o o n e wa s a s s i g n e d t o mon i t or t he calls. W hile th ese statem en ts sug g est th at n ob od y listened to the cal ls as a m att er ofcours e, it w ould take an i nf erent ial l eap f or us to acc eptthe defen dant s ’ ar gum en tthatno body ever listened to the calls. thel ess , thi s i s no t a pro p ergr ound fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Th e de fe nd a nt s a s k us t o i nfe r f r o m the a b s e nc e o f evi dence i n the re cor d that no body fro m the Vil l age o f Bel l woo d e ve r l i st en ed to the record ed pho ne c al l s, b ut dr awi ngtha t i nfer en ce woul d b e i nc o m pat ibl e wi ththe re q u ire m en t t h at w e d ra w all rea s o n a b le in fer en c es in f avo r ofthe non- m ovi ng par ty. T ak in g t h e fa c ts in t h e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o N ar d u c c i, then, he ha s dem onst ra ted a re aso nabl e e xpect ati on o f p riv ac y in h is p h on e lin e a t w or k. T h e n ex t is su e is whethe r the wor k pl ace sea r chi n thi s ca se was c o nduct ed i n ar ea son ab l e m an ne r . I n O r t ega , the C ou rt rej ecte d a w ar ra nt o r probabl e ca use r equi re m ent for w or kpl ace sea rche s a nd i nstea d determ i ned that thos e se ar ch es m us t si m pl y be r ea so nabl e unde r al l o f the c irc u m st a n c e s. Id. at72 1- 25. “Un der thi s r eas onabl eness st an dar d, bo th th e i nc ept i o n an d th e sc o pe o fthe i ntrusi on m ust be r eas onabl e. ” Id. at72 6. A s ea rch by a su p erior is j us tified at it s i nc ep tion “w he n th ere are re as on ab le grou n d s for su sp ec tin g th at th e sea rc h w i ll turn up ev i dence thatthe em plo yee i s guil ty ofworkre l ate d m i sco nd uct, o r that the s ear ch i s nec es sar y for a no ni nvest i gat or y w or k- re l ate d pu rpos e . . . . ” Id. The14 N o. 06

- 3427

sea rch i s r eas onabl e in sc op e so l ong as “the m eas ures taken by the e m pl o y era r e r ea so nabl y r el at ed to the se ar c h ’s o b je c t i v e an d th ey are n otov er ly in tr u siv e in l i ght of the nature of the al l eged m isc onduct. ” G o ssm eyer v. M cD ona ld, 1 28 F
. 3d 48 1, 4 91 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 7)

. The dist ri ct courtf ound that the se ar ch w as j usti fi ed at i ts i ncepti on be cause i t w as m oti vate d by a work- re l ate d need to r eco rd in sta nces ofcusto m er s be i ng ab usi ve to em plo yee s ( orvi ce ver sa) and to m oni torthe use o fvi l l age ph o ne l i ne s f o r p e r s o na l c a l l s . I tu l t i mat e l y c o nc l ud e d, how eve r, thatunder N ar du cci ’ s v er si on o f the f acts that re cor ding eve rysingl e phone cal l m ade on th ose l i nes for yea rs witho ut ev ernot i fyi ng the em plo yee s was nota r ea so nabl e sc o pe f o r the s ea r ch

. Lem m and M oo re ar gue that th e d istri ct c ourter re d by fi nd i ng tha t the se ar ch w as unreas onabl y e xpansive ; th ey cl ai m thatthe param ete rs o fthe sea rch w er e nev er b ro ad en ed , an d so if it w as rea so n ab le a t i ts inc ep tio n it was r ea so nabl e thr o ug ho uti ts dur at i o n. Thi s ar g um en t i gnor es the exces si ve du ra ti on o fthe sea rch i n thi s ca se, how ever . T h e record ing here lasted at l east six yea rs ( an d pe r ha ps l o ng er, g i ve n the di sc r epa nc y i n t es ti m o ny abou t w he n th e ph one l ines w ere d isconn ecte d ); N ar d u c c i wo r k e d f o r B e l l wo o d f o r a p p r o x i ma t e l y t wo yea rs befor e he l ear ned that the phone l i nes were r eco r ded. He t es ti fi ed th ath e m ad e “h undr eds a nd hu ndreds” o fphone ca l l s, so m e invol vi ng “s ensi ti ve p erson al m atters” th at w ere all record ed on th e v il lage’s Dict aphone sy ste m . N ar du ccite sti fi ed that al l o fthi s was done w i thout gi vi ng anynot i c e to the affecte d parti es. O r t ega ne ce ss ar i l y r equi r es a c as e-by

- ca se i nqui r y, a ndN o. 06

- 3427 15

W e em phasize t h a t our r uli ng here i s cent ered on the f re- 3 que nc y with whi c h Narduc c i us ed the af f ec t ed phone li ne s , the vol um e of c alls th athe m ade , as wel l as the l ac k ofno t i c e. The di s t ri c tc our tha s c er t i fied this c as e as a c l as s ac t i on, with the c l as s i nc lud ing a l l pe rs ons who c al l ed i nt o o r outfro m the p ho ne l i ne s duri ng the dura t i on ofthe t api ng. Bec aus e ofthe se nsi ti ve, cas e-by

- cas e i nquiry o f O rt ega ( incl ud ing i ts l im it at i on t o go ver nm en te m pl oyees, whi c h s om e m em ber s ofthe pu rported cl ass are alm ostce rt ainl y not) w e a re s k epti cal that N ard u cci’ s claim s are ty p ical of the c l a i m s of the en tire class (w hich theo retica lly em b rac es p eo p le w ho m ad e a sing le phon e c a l l ) a n d s u g g e s t th a t i n l i g h t o f th e l i mi t e d n a t u r e of our r ul i ng the di s t ri c tc our tm ay ne ed t o r evi s i tthe issu e of class actio n ce rtifi c a t i on p u rsu an t to F ed era l R u le of Civ il P ro ce d u re 23 (c)(1 )(C ). w e nee d not g o beyo nd the f acts o fthi s ca se w hen dis

cussi ng the Fo urth Am endm ent’ s a pp l i cabi l i ty. Giv en th atthe a l lega ti o ns i n thi s ca se i nc l ude the r ec o r di ng o fe ve r y pho ne c al l, f o r a t l ea sta s i x- y ea r pe r i o d, wi thno n ot ice to the affecte d em plo yee s a nd with the i nvasi on ofpri vacyf alli ng par ti cul ar l y har d on fi nance depart

m ent em plo yee s w ho used thos e l i nes e ver y day, N ar du cci ha s p r e s e n t e d s u ffi c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f a v i o l a t i o n o ft he Four th A m endm ent t o w i thsta nd sum m ar y j ud gm ent. 3

B. W hethert he r i ght w as c l ear l y e st abli shed Lem m and M oo re al so ar gue that work pla ce s ear ch an d s ei zu r e l aw was no t su ffi ci en tl y de ve l o ped atthe tim e o f th e t ap i n g t o p u t t h em on n ot ice th at th eir conduct vi ol ated consti tuti onalr i ghts. Thi s ci rcui t’ s ca se16 N o. 06

- 3427

Lem m and M oore a ls o ci te A m at iv. C i ty of Woods t ock, 176 4 F. 3 d 9 5 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) a nd A bbot tv. Vi l l ageof Wi nthrop Harbo r, 205 F. 3d 976 ( 7th Cir. 2000)

. N ei ther cas e s up ports thei r quali fie d im m u n ity cla im o n th e F o u rt h A m en d m en t g ro u n d s. A m ati consi dered on ly c lai m s brou ght u nd er Titl e III , and it involved the reco rd ing of ph on e calls into an d ou t of a p olice d ep artm ent, w hich obv iousl y inv o lv es diff erentj usti fic ati ons than reco rd ing calls into a n d o u t o f a n on -em erg en cy city d ep artm en t. A b b ott inv olv ed b oth § 1983 claim s an d T itle II I c l aim s, bu t the opinion is concerned w ith quest ions ofm unici pal liab ility rath er th an the sco p e of Fo u rth A m en d m en t righ ts. l aw, the y a r g ue , r emai ns rel at i ve l y unde ve l o ped o n the subj ect ofworkpl ace sea rche s a nd se i zure s. Th er e hav e o nl y b ee n t wo de ci si o ns i n thi s ci r cui t dea l i ngwi ththe i ss ue , b o thi nv o l vingphy si ca l s ea r ch es . I n Shi e l ds v. Burge, 8 7 4 F .2d 12 01 , 120 4-0 5 (7 th C ir. 19 88 ), w e h eld tha to ff i ci al s wh o s e a r c he d a p o l i c e o ffi c e r ’ s de s ka nd a bri ef case f ound in hi s ca r w er e i m m une fro m suit und er § 1 983 because the sea rch did not v iola te a cl ear l y e stabli sh ed r i g ht

. I n G ossm eye r v. M cD ona ld, 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 4 8 1 , 49 1 (7th C ir. 1997), w e held that a si m il ar search of a Ch i l d Prot ecti ve Se rv i ces em plo yee ’ s fi l e cabi n et w as r ea so nabl y r el at ed to a l l eg at i o ns o fwor k pl ac e m i sc o nducta nd r ea so nabl e i n s co pe. M o r eo ve r, the p an el f o und that al l o fthe offi cials e x ecuti ng the se ar ch w er e e nti tl ed to q u alifie d im m u n ity
. Id. at 495. The re i s thu s no sq ua re hold ing ad d ressing w he t he r record ing an em p loyee’s pho ne c al l s vi o l at es hi s F o urt h Am en dm en t r i g ht s, a nd onl y tw o opi ni ons add re ssi ng the o u tlines o fFo urth A m endm ent r i ghts i n the w or kpl ace. 4N o. 06

- 3427 17 N ar du ccidoes notco ntend that there i s a deci si on fro m th is c irc u it or th e Su p re m e C ou rtad d re ss in g t h is issue, but he a r gu es th at th e con tou rs of th e ri gh t w ere su ffi ci en tl y c l ea r . Bo th Katz a nd O r t ega pre ceded Bel l woo d’ s dec i si o n t o r ec o r d the pho ne l i ne s i n the fin an c e d ep ar tm en t; L e m m a n d M oo re th u s s h ou ld have known thatr eco rdi ng th os e phone l i nes was a viol ati on o fco nsti tuti onalr i ghts. W hi l e G o ssm eyera nd Shi e l ds b o thpe r m i tt ed wor k pl ac e se ar ch es and f o und qua l i f i ed im m un ity, ne i th er de ci si o n a l te r ed th e a n a l y s i s c o u r t s a r e s u p p o s e d t o a p p l y t o s u c h c l a i ms and thus did notbl ur the l i nes dra w n by O r t ega a nd Katz
. I n d e e d , th e o p i n i o n i n Shi e l ds not ed that a s ear ch m ay no t be r ea so nabl e i fi t was a “ fi sh i ng ex p ed i ti o n c o ndu cted with the hopeth at so m et h in g w ou ld tu rn u p .” Shi e l ds , 874 F.2d at 120 5 (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. The dist ri ct cour t’ s sum m ar y j ud gm ent opi ni on, for its p ar t, d id n otfind a c a s e i n th is c irc u it h old in g t h at th is con d uc t or si m il ar con d uc t viol ated a pu bli c em p loyee’s Four th A m endm ent r i ghts. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty, ho wev er, b ec au se i t f o und tha t no re aso nabl e o ffi ci alco uld have bel i eve d that the i nd i scri m i nate tapi ng o fal l phone ca l l s, with no not i ce t o th e a ffe c t e d e mp l o y e e s , f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s aft e r th e c o mp laints and al l ege d thre ats had cea sed, was re aso nably r el at ed to the pr o bl em j us ti fy i ngthe s ea r ch

. The de fen d an ts p oin t o u t t h at th er e is n o op in ion ex p licit ly fi nd i ng such c onduct to be a vi ol at ion o fthe Four th A m endm ent, but the S uprem e Cou rt onl y r equi re s that “the u nlaw ful ne ss mustb e appa r en t” i n l i g hto fthe c as ela w . Shi e l ds , 874 F
. 2d at 1205 ( quoti ng An de r s on , 48 318 N o. 06

- 3427

The c onduc ti n Z affu to i nvol ved both re c or di ng and di s c l os i ng 5 a p erso na l ph on e call, w hich m a y b e a g ro u nd on w hich to di s t i ngui s h Z affu to fro m the pr es en tc as e. Once ag ai n, the pa r t i e s di s pu t e whe the r Be l l woo d made a ny us e o fthe r e c or di ngs i n thi s c as e. W e s i m pl y no t e thatthe Fi fth Ci rc ui tf ound the r i ghtt o pr i vac y i n pe rs ona l c om m uni c at i ons ona c i t yi s s ued ph one lin e t o be s uffi c i en t l y c l ea r t o pr ec l ude a fi ndi ng ofqua l i fi ed i m m uni t y. The N inth C i rc ui ti n Q uon ult im atel y f ound thata poli ce 6 c hi efwas e nt i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ona gr ound n ot a p p lic a b le h er e. SeeQu on , 529 F. 3d at 910. U
. S. at64 0); s e e a lso P elz er, 53 6 U.S

. at74 1- 42 ( fi nd i ng tha t pri son offi ci al s who used a “ hi tchi ng post ” t o p u ni sh i nm ate s were n ot enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity despi te th e lack ofa dec isi on ad d ressing th e prec ise i ssu e). O ne of ou r si ster circu its has h eld th at in l ig ht of Katz , r ec o r di nga nd di sc l o singa pol i ce offi ce r ’ s per so na l pho ne cal l to hi s wife o n a po lice d epartm ent t el ephone sy ste m i s a cl earvi ol ati on o fthe F ou rth A m endm ent a nd that the s up er vi sorr es p on sibl e f orthe re cor ding w as not en tit led to qu alifie d im m u n ity
. Zaff ut o v. Ci ty of

Ham m ond, 30 8 F
. 3d 48 5, 4 89 n. 3 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2)

. A not her c i r cui t, i n a 5 case i nvol vi ng te xt m ess age s o n a depar tm ent- i ssued p ag er , fou n d t h at in c irc u m st an c es sim ilar to th os e in the pr ese nt cas e “ i t was cl earat t h e ti m e o fthe sea rch th ata n e m pl o y ee i s f r ee fr o m u nr ea so nabl e se ar cha nd sei zure i n the w or kpl ace. ” Q uon v. Ar ch Wi r e l e s s O pe r at i ng C o., Inc. , 52 9 F. 3d 892, 909- 10 ( 9th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng O r t ega ). 6 W e a g r e e wi th tho s e c i r c ui t s tha t a t the t i me o fthe re cord i ngi n thi s ca se , i t was s uffi ci en tl y c l ea r tha t g o ve r n-N o. 06

- 3427 19

The d efendan ts ’ m oti on f o r su m m ary j ud gm ent rai se d 7 s eve ra l gr ounds f or di s m i s sing the Ti t l e I I I c l ai m s , i nc l udi ng the c ons en tan d l aw en f or c em en t e xcepti ons t o Ti t l e I I I , the requir em ent thata c om m unicat ion b e i ntent ional ly i nter cepted and , i n the reply brie f, quali fie d i m m u n ity
. The d is tr ic t c ourt di s m i s s ed s om e of Narduc c i ’ s c l ai m s pur s uan tt o the c ons en t ex c ept i on b u tf ound thatthe l aw en f or c em en te xc ept i on d id n o t ap p ly a nd tha t bo th d efend an ts had inten tion ally inter cep ted calls w ithin the m e a n i n g o f T itle III. O n a p p eal, (co n tin u ed ...) m ent e m plo yee s e nj oye d a r eason ab l e e xpectati on o f pri vacyi n the w or kpl ace to p re cl ud e qual i fi ed i m m unity.

C . T i t l e I I I c l a i ms L e mm a n d Mo o r e a l s o mo v e d f o r s u mma r y j u dgment on the appel l ees ’ cl ai m s th at the Vi l l age o fBel l w oo d vio lat ed T itle II I by s u rre p tit iou sly rec or d i n g p h on e c alls f ro m the fi nance d ep artm ent. Thi s ci rcui t, l i ke a few ot h ers, r eco gni zes qual i fi ed i m m unity a s a defense to a law su it u n d er T itle II I. SeeD avis v. Zirkel bach , 14 9 F
. 3d 614, 61 8 ( 7 t h C i r. 19 98 ); see also Tapley v . Col l i ns , 21 1 F

. 3d 1210 , 12 16 (11 th C ir. 20 00 ); Blakev. Wr ight, 179 F. 3d 10 03 , 1 013 ( 6th Ci r. 19 99). Lem m and M oo re o ri gi nal l y m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent b y presenti ng a quali fi ed i m m unity defen se t o the 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 cl ai m s i n the co m pl aint, b ut m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm en t o n other gr ounds w i th re spect to the Ti tl e I I Icl ai m s. They then r ais ed qual i fi ed im m u n ity as a d efe n se to th e T itle II I claim s in th eir r epl y br i ef

. The di st r i ct co ur t r efus ed to co ns ider th e 720 N o. 06

- 3427

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 defe nd ants d o not rai se thos e i ss ues e xce pt i nsof ar as the y affect thei r qu alified im m u nity d efense, and so w e on ly eva l uat e whethe r the di s t ri c tc our tc or re c t l y f ound thatthe qu alified im m u nity d efense w asfor fei t ed a ts um m ary ju d g m en t. ar g um en t; the a ppel l an ts ha d f o r fei te d i t, th e c o ur t co ncl ude d, by notbr i ng i ngi t up i n the i r o r i g i na l s ubmi ss i o n. (T h e a p p ella n t s h av e p ro vid ed , in th e a p p en d ix to th eir appell ate bri ef s, a seco nd sum m ar y j ud gm ent s ubm i ssi on wi tha mor e ful so m e qua l i fi ed i m m uni tydi sc ussi o n. T he y fi led th is second m o t ion after the d istri ct cou rt i ss ue d i ts s um m ar y j udg m en t o pi ni o n, ho wev er, a nd the d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otgra n t t h em rec on sid er at ion .) I n proce edi ngs bef or e the dist ri ct cour t, coun se l f or Lemm a nd M o o r e co nc ede d tha t, “ when we r ai se d the ar gum ent of quali fi ed i m m unity, w e ra i sed i t onl y u nd er the s ection t hat was ent i tl ed Fo urth Am endm ent. ” That w oul d s eem to be the end of the i ssue, si nce th e d ist ri ct co urt is ent i tl ed to fi nd tha t ana r g um en t r ai se d f o r the f i r st tim e in a re p ly b rie f is forfe ite d

. Cromee ns, Hol l om an, Sibert, Inc v . A B V

o lvo , 349 F. 3d 376, 38 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( “Be ca us e Vo l vo r ai sed th e appl i cabi l i tyo fthe M aine sta tu te in its r epl y b ri ef, the dist ri ct c ourtwas enti tl ed to fi nd t ha t Volvo w aived the issu e.”)

. Le m m and M oore conte nd , however, thattheycan al so appeal the deni al ofq ual i fi ed i m m unity under the c ol l ate ra l o rderdoctr i ne. The c l as si c f o r m ul at i o n o fthe c o l l at er alo r derdo ct r in e hol ds that a no n-fi nal deci sio n o fthe dist ri ct c ourtcan be r evi ew ed i fi t f al l s withi n “thatsm al l cl ass wh i ch fi na l l y det er m i ne cl ai m s o f r i g ht se par ab l e f rom , andN o. 06

- 3427 21

co l l ate r alt o , r i g ht s as se r te d i n the a ct i o n, t o o i m po r ta nt to be deni ed re vi ew and to o i nd ependent ofthe c au se i tse l fto r equi re that a p p el l ate co nsi derat i on be defer re d un t i l the wh o l e c a s e i s a dj ud i c a ted. ” C ohe n v . Be ne f i ci al Indu s . Lo an C o rp. , 33 7 U.S

. 54 1, 54 6 ( 1949 )

. W hi l e a n appeal s co urt can r evi ew a c l ai m o fqual i fi ed i m m unity aft er t r i a l , an d ca n va c at e a n ad ve rs e jud gm en t if it fi nd s that the o ffi ci al s a re pro tect ed by quali fi ed i m m unity, the doctr i ne i s a pro tect i on fro m sui t a s wel l as a p ro te c tio n f r o m liab ility

. SeeM it chel l v. Fors yth , 47 2 U
. S. 51 1, 52 6- 27 ( 1985 )

. I n thi s way, qual ified i m m unity i s l i ke the r i ght a gai nst doubl e j eopar dy; a c ou rt cannot ver y wel l vi nd i cate a ri ght no t t o sta nd trial afte r an offi ci alhas al re ady st oo d tri al

. Thus, an a pp eal s co urt can r e v i e w a d e n i a l o fsu mma r y j u d g me n to n qu a l i fi e d i mm unity g ro und s s o l ong as the deni alwas not b ec ause of a d isp u te d fac tu al iss u e. Id. at53 0. T his argu m en t d oes not get Le m m a n d M o o re very far, how eve r, bec ause it m er el y s up port s j uri sdic ti on o ver th e a p p e a l fr o m th e d e n i a l o fs u mma r y j u d g me n t
. As di sc us se d abo ve , the di st r i ctc o ur t was entitle d t o fi nd that Lem m a n d M oo re waive d the qual i fi ed i m m unity defe nse in the su m m ar y j ud gm ent pr oce edi ngs b ecause the y f a i l e d t o r a i s e the i ssue b e f o r e the i r r e pl y b r i e f

. Of cour se, Lem m and M oo re al so presen te d a succe ssi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on t o the d istr i ct c ourt, wh i ch i t r efused to co nsi der. The co l l atera l o rd erdoctr i ne m ay give them grou n d s to ap p eal the d en ialof (or rath er, re fusalto co nsi der) tha t seco nd m oti on. Our r evi ew o n that i ssue i s l i m i ted, bec ause th e fi l i ng o fsucce ssi ve summ a r y j ud g men tmo t i o ns i s a ma t t e r wi thin the di s-22 N o. 06

- 3427

c re tio n of th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. Se eW hi t f or d v

. Bogl i no , 63 F. 3d 527, 5 30 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( “the dist ri ct c ourtm ay, i n i ts disc re ti on, al low a p ar ty to re new a previ ousl y deni ed sum m ary j ud gm ent m oti on o r fi l e s uccess i ve m oti ons, p articu larly i f good reason s exist.”). Le m m and M oore ar g ue tha t t he d i st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d ha ve c o ns i der ed th e quali fi ed i m m unity iss ue atsum m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause th e d efense i s su ffici en tly i m p ortan t tha t the f ail ure to co n s i d e r it w as p lain err or . Se eYorge rv. Pit t s b urgh C o rnin g C o rp . , 73 3 F
. 2d 1215 , 12 20- 21 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84) ( an ar gu m en t w ill no t b e c on s i d e r e d w aiv ed if it w ou ld resu lt in a p lai n m iscarriage ofj us tice). T he pres en t case d oes not sup p ort reve r s al on an oth erw ise f o r fe ited grou nd , how ever. Fi rst, L em m and M oore w er e re p re se n te d by c o u n s el b elo w , an d it is n otu n fair to h old th em to th e s ta n d ar d s o f w aiv e r t o w h ich all co u n s e l a r e h e l d

. S e c o n d , L e mm a n d Mo o r e we r e the m ovingparty forsum m ar y j ud gm ent; i ftheyfelt enti tl ed to te rm i nate the pr oce edi ngs because o fqual i fi ed i m m uni ty, the y wer e r equi r ed to b r i ngtha t i ss ue t o the d istri ct cou rt’s atte n t ion
. Fi na ll y, as th e d istri ct cou rt poi nted out, the prese nt ca se has been li ti gat ed si nce 2001 , w hile the m otions for sum m ary j u d g m e nt w ere subm itte d i n 2 00 6; fi ve y ea r s i s ampl e ti m e f o r the de fen dants to devel op t h e i ssue and prese nt i t in thei r i ni ti al m o ti o n. W e al so no te tha t Lemm a nd M oore hav e pl ed th e d e fe n s e o fqua l i fi e d i mmu n i t y o n th e T i t l e I I Ic l a i ms and that i t r em ai ns av ai l abl e as a b asi s f ora m oti on for j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw du ring t h e c o urs e of aN o. 06

- 3427 23
tr i a l i n thi s c a s e , o r de pe nd i ng o n the j ur y ’ s v e r di ct, as th e b as is for an ap p ea l aft er w ar d s.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego in g rea sons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cou rt’s den ialof th e d efend an ts’ m otio n for sum m ary j ud gm ent.

7- 9- 09