Quon

Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc.

Good Law
445 F. Supp. 2d 1116·2006 WL 2424745·25 A.L.R. 6th 649·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61612
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 15, 2006EDCV 03-199 SGLCalifornia17,161 words

Opinion

Opinion

Larson, J.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS* MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

What are the legal boundaries of an employee’s privacy in this interconnected, electronic-communication age, one in which thoughts and ideas that would have been spoken personally and privately in ages past are now instantly text-messaged to friends and family via hand-held, computer-assisted electronic devices? It is precisely this question that is before the Court in the form of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the pleadings and listening to the parties’ oral arguments at multiple hearings on the instant motions, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants’ motions for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment.

Given that the applicable legal standard for considering such motions has long past become firmly established, the Court will only briefly remind the reader: Summary judgment can be granted only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and where the movant is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.