Opinion ID: 152982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Party to the Conversation

Text: The district court found that David Weintraub was a party to the relevant conversation, and we agree. Caro argues that David Weintraub was not a party to the conversation because there were actually multiple conversations that occurred in the kitchen, and the participants in the conversations did not invite David to join any of them. Limiting ourselves, as we must, to the facts pled in the complaint, we conclude that David Weintraub was a party to the conversation for purposes of the Wiretap Act. In the context of the statute, a party to the conversation is one who takes part in the conversation. Caro offersand we can findno support for the proposition that one must be invited to a conversation in order to be a party to it. Caro admits in his complaint that David Weintraub was present at the table during the conversation in the kitchen and that David spoke up a few times urging [Caro] to continue. Those facts are sufficient to establish that David was a party to the conversation. [5] Concluding that David Weintraub was a party to the conversation is not fatal to Caro's claims. The Wiretap Act forbids someone who is a party to a conversation to record it, if the oral . . . communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Invocation of this provision raises the question of what must be alleged to demonstrate tortious intent.