Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:03-CV-0137-J
January 29, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed December 15, 2003. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
With respect to Plaintiff's causes of action under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4), § 605(e)(3)(C), 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 123.001, et seq, and for civil conversion, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion as it relates to 18 U.S.C. § 2512 is GRANTED. After examining the decisions of a number of courts around the country, the arguments of counsel, and the language of the relevant statutes, the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 2520 does not provide a private cause of action for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2512. Although courts remain divided on this issue, several district courts in the Fifth Circuit have concluded that no private cause of action exists. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Alberts, Cause No. 1:03-CV-161 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003)(Cobb, J.); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Jerolleman, No. Civ. A. 03-1465, 2003 WL 22697177 (E.D. La. Nov. 12, 2003)(Engelhardt, J.); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Harvey, No. C-03-198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2003)(Jack, J.). This Court agrees with their reasoning in finding that § 2520 defines the class of defendants as those engaging in the interception, disclosure, or intentional use of a plaintiff's communication. This interpretation comports with the Fifth Circuit's analysis in Peavy v. WFAA-TV. Inc., 221 F.3d 158, 168 (2000), and is the most logical interpretation of the statute.
It is SO ORDERED.