08-3420 McCann v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital

Listen to this article

Wiretap Act
Summary judgment

A plaintiff suing under the Wiretap Act is not required to produce direct evidence of intentional interception to survive summary judgment.

“Here, the plaintiffs testified that they did not turn on the dictation machine that recorded their private conversation, but that during their conversation Freed walked in and picked up papers adjacent to the machine, giving her easy access to it. That testimony, when coupled with the facts that the machine was turned on in actual mid-conversation, and that Freed disliked Lindberg’s work at the hospital and therefore had reason to discredit him, provides circumstantial evidence that Freed deliberately turned on the recording equipment to capture the unflattering conversation. Freed does not dispute some elements of this story-she recalls entering Lindberg’s office while he was speaking to McCann and picking up a stack of forms immediately next to Lindberg’s dictation machine. Freed just denies that it happened on the 24th, and denies that she intentionally turned on the dictation machine while she was there. But that leaves us with conflicting testimony on a central issue-in other words, a swearing contest.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

08-3420 McCann v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Baker, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text