Opinion ID: 176129
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Privacy Interests at Stake

Text: While the SEC has a right of access to the wiretap materials, that right must be balanced against the strong privacy interests at stake in connection with the fruits of electronic surveillance. The privacy interests in the instant case merit particular attention given that the disclosure order implicated thousands of conversations of hundreds of innocent parties, and that the district court ordered disclosure prior to any ruling on the legality of the interceptions and without limiting the disclosure to relevant conversations. The Supreme Court has made clear that although Title III authorizes invasions of individual privacy under certain circumstances, the protection of privacy was an overriding congressional concern. Gelbard, 408 U.S. at 48, 92 S.Ct. 2357; see also Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 523, 121 S.Ct. 1753 (One of the stated purposes of [Title III] was `to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications.'); id. at 532, 121 S.Ct. 1753 (Privacy of communication is an important interest, and Title III's restrictions are intended to protect that interest.... (citation and footnote omitted)). Indeed, we have reiterated the importance of the privacy interests embodied in Title III time and again. [26] The fact that Title III does not impose an absolute ban on civil discovery orders of the kind at issue here does not mean that the concerns for privacy that underlie Title III are irrelevant or can be disregarded. To the contrary, we conclude that those concerns, and the evident desire of Congress to limit disclosures of the fruits even of lawful wiretapping, must be carefully weighed before discovery is ordered.