Robert C. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Robert Konop brought suit against his employer, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian”), alleging that Hawaiian viewed Ko-nop’s secure website without authorization, disclosed the contents of that website, and took other related actions in violation of the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Railway Labor Act. Konop also alleged several state tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment against Konop on all claims, except his retaliation claim under the Railway Labor Act. On the retaliation claim, the district court entered judgment against Konop following a bench trial. Ko-nop appeals the district court’s judgement on all claims, except on those brought under state tort law.

On January 8, 2001, we issued an opinion, reversing the district court’s decision on Konop’s claims under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act, and on several of his claims under the Railway Labor Act. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.2001). Hawaiian filed a petition for rehearing, which became moot when we withdrew our previous opinion. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 262 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2001). We now affirm the judgment of…

302 F.3d 868 Robert C. KONOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-55106. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 8, 2000. Filed January 8, 2001. Opinion Withdrawn August 28, 2001. Filed August 23, 2002. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Robert C. Konop, Pro se, Playa del Rey, CA, plaintiff-appellant. Marianne Shipp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, D.C. No. CV-96-04898-SJL (JGx). Before BOOCHEVER, REINHARDT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge BOOCHEVER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge REINHARDT. OPINION BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge. 1 Robert Konop brought suit against his employer, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. ("Hawaiian"), alleging that Hawaiian viewed Konop's secure website without authorization, disclosed the contents of that website, and took other related actions in violation of the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Railway Labor Act. Konop also alleged several…

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I concur in Part C of Section I of the majority opinion regarding Konop’s claims under the Stored Communications Act, and Section II of the majority opinion regarding Konop’s claims under the Railway Labor Act. I dissent, however, from Part B of Section I, which holds that the term “intercept” in the Wiretap Act, as applied to electronic communications, refers solely to contemporaneous acquisition. I conclude instead that “stored electronic *887 communications” are subject to the statute’s intercept prohibition as well.

Because I recognize that any reading of the relevant statutory provisions raises some difficulties and introduces some inconsistencies, the question becomes: which reading is more coherent and more consistent with Congressional intent? The majority reasons, and I agree, that stored electronic communications are covered under the definition of “electronic communications” in the Wiretap Act. However, having made that determination, the majority proceeds to introduce unnecessary confusion and incoherence into the statute by holding that “intercept” encompasses only contemporaneous acquisition of electronic communications, and…