No. 07-56640 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUSTIN BUNNELL, FORREST PARKER, WES PARKER and VALENCE MEDIA, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California The Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF Ira P. Rothken (SBN 160029) Robert L. Kovsky (SBN 61770) ROTHKEN LAW FIRM LLP 3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280 Novato, CA 94949 Telephone: (415) 924-4250 Facsimile: (415) 924-2905 Attorney for Appellants Justin Bunnell, Forrest Parker, Wes Parker and Valence Media, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS page Corporate Disclosure Statement of Valence Media, Ltd. .............................. 1 Appellants’ Request for Oral Argument ........................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Issues Presented for Review .......................................................................... 3 Statement of the Case ..................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 5 A. MPAA and Its Involvement with Rob Anderson ...................... 5 B. The Vaga Ventures/MPAA Agreement and Negotiations Leading Thereto ........................................................................ 8 C. The Anderson Documents ......................................................... 10 D. MPAA’s Review of the Anderson Documents ......................... 13 E. MPAA’s Disclosure and Use of the Anderson Documents ...... 14 F. MPAA Paid For and Ratified its Acquisition of the Anderson Documents ................................................................ 15 G. The Real Rob Anderson and His Deeds .................................... 16 H. Details of the Means Used by Anderson to Acquire the Emails ................................................................ 19 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 25 i LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 31 I. Anderson Intercepted Electronic Communications In Violation of the Wiretap Act. ............................................... 31 A. Procedural Context and Standard of Review .................. 31 B. The Definitional Problem in the ECPA .......................... 32 C. The Konop “Judicial Definition of ‘Intercept’,” Implicitly Approved by Congress, Stands Independent of Its Derivation From a Superseded Statute That Contained the Phrase “In Electronic Storage.” ...................................... 35 D. Application of the Konop “Judicial Definition of ‘Intercept’” to the Facts of this Case Establishes that Anderson Violated the Wiretap Act When He Acquired Emails Through the Use of the Device He Set in Plaintiffs’ Computer System. .......................................... 39 E. The District Court’s Interpretation of Konop Was Erroneous ........................................................................ 42 II. The ECPA Does Not Preempt California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. ............................................................ 49 III. The District Court Erroneously Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets Claim. ................................................................. 53 A. Procedural Context and Standard of Review .................. 53 B. The Anderson Documents Were Sufficiently Identified. .................................................... 54 C. The Anderson Documents Qualify As Trade Secrets. ..... 58 IV. The District Court Erroneously Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Claim Under California’s Unfair Competition Law. ................ 62 ii CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 64 Statement of Possibly Related Case .............................................................. 65 Certificate of Compliance ............................................................................. 66 iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Kovacs v. Cooper, Judge, 336 U.S. 77; 69 S. Ct. 448; 93 L. Ed. 513 (1948).........45 Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 158 L. Ed. 2d 1, 124 S. Ct. 130 (2004)..................56 Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 62 L. Ed. 372, 38 S. Ct. 158 (1918)......................48 DECISIONS OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS Apollo Technologies Corp. v. Centrosphere Indus. Corp., 805 F. Supp. 1157 (D.N.J. 1992)........................................................................60 Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Keystone Steel Fabrication, Inc., 584 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1978) ............................................................................60 Chevron USA, Inc. v Cayetano, 224 F3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) cert den 532 US 942, 121 S Ct 1403, 149 L Ed 2d 346 (2001)..........................54 Forro Precision, Inc. v. Intern. Business Machines, 673 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................57 Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003)..........................44 Garcia v. Haskett, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46303, No. C 05-3754 CW (N. D. Cal. June 30, 2006)..................................................37 iv Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic United States, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463, No. 07-1029 (W. D. Pa., April 23, 2008) ................................................52 Imax Corp. v. Cinema Technologies,Inc., 152 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1998)........................................................... 53, 56, 57, 62 In Re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation, Noah Blumofe, 329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003)............................................................................. 21, 36 In re Toys R Us, Inc., Privacy Litigation, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16947, MDL No. M-00-1381 MMC (N.D. Cal. 2001)...................................................44 Ip v. United States, 205 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2000)...................................................48 Knudsen Corp. v. Ever-Fresh Foods, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 241 (C.D. Cal. 1971)......58 Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1193, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1028, 123 S. Ct. 1292 (2003)...................... passim Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (withdrawn Konop)...................................... 26, 29 MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F 2d 511 (9th Cir 1993)....... 53, 60 Mid-Michigan Computer Systems, Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 415 F.3d 505 (6th Cir., 2005) .............................................................................59 Mixing Equipment Co. v. Philadelphia Gear, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 1269 (E.D. Pa. 1974) modified, 436 F.2d 1308 (3d Cir. 1971)...................................59 Peters v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 914 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1990)............................32 v Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006), affirmed in part and reversed in part by, remanded by Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12766 (9th Cir. Cal., June 18, 2008)....52 Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1231 (N.D. 2005)............................................................................59 Smith v. United States, 953 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1991).............................................45 Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................38 Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (withdrawn Theofel)............26 Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) cert. den. sub nom. Farey-Jones v. Theofel, 543 U.S. 813, 125 S. Ct. 48, 160 L. Ed. 2d 17 (2004)..................... 26, 27, 35, 44 United States of America v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003) cert den. 538 U.S. 1051, 123 S. Ct. 2120, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1095 (2003)......................................21 United States v Luong 471 F3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. den. 128 S Ct 532, 169 L Ed 2d 371 (2007)........................................ 41, 44 United States v. Councilman, 373 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. Mass., 2004) (withdrawn Councilman).................. passim United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005)............................... passim United States v. Hall, 543 F.2d 1229 (9th Circuit 1976)..........................................52 vi United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1434 (9th Cir. 1984)....................................52 United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) cert. denied 525 U.S. 1071, 119 S. Ct. 804, 142 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1999).................................................... passim United States v. Smith, 726 F.2d 852 (1st Cir. 1984)...............................................52 United States v. Turk, 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1976) ...............................................40 Universal Analytics v. MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., 707 F. Supp. 1170 (C.D. Cal. 1989), aff'd, 914 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990)......................................57 Vermont Microsystems v. Autodesk, Inc., 88 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 1996)....................59 FEDERAL STATUTES 7 USCS § 230(e)(4)..................................................................................................50 15 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et. seq................................................................................. passim 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4).................................................................................................33 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)...............................................................................................33 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c).............................................................................................31 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d).............................................................................................31 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)...............................................................................................33 18 U.S.C. § 2518......................................................................................................50 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).............................................................................................44 vii 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(c).................................................................................... 50, 52 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) .................................................................................................31 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et. seq...................................................................... 32, 33, 36, 43 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a) .................................................................................................33 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a) .................................................................................................44 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a) .................................................................................................33 28 U.S.C. § 1291........................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1331........................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ...................................................................................................2 USA PATRIOT Act § 209, 115 Stat. at 283............................................................38 FEDERAL RULES Fed.R.Evid. 201 .......................................................................................................12 viii STATE COURT CASES Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1..................58 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 215, 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 169 (2002)..............................................................................60 Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 574 (2002)..................49 Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95; 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730 (2006).......................................................51 People v. Conklin, 12 Cal.3d 259, 114 Cal. Rptr. 241 (1974).................................51 Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355, 212 Cal. Rptr. 143 (1985) .....................................49 Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 (2000).........63 STATE STATUTES Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq.......................................................... 30, 62 Cal. Civil Code §§ 3426.1 et. seq..................................................................... 53, 62 Cal. Civil Code § 3426.1(d).............................................................................. 58, 60 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210 .............................................................................55 Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et. seq. .............................................................. 3, 25, 29, 49 Cal. Penal Code § 631..............................................................................................49 ix