Sussman v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
186 F.3d 1200
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number 97-55410
Before Circuit Judge A. Kozinski, Circuit Judge A.J. Kleinfeld, and District Judge O.M. Panner
Decided on August 18, 1999

Relevancy of the Case: Validity of eavesdropping and fraud claims in a case involving secretly recording conversations through misrepresentation

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510
• The California Penal Code § 632

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiffs are the employees and owners of Psychic Marketing Group (PMG). PMG provides psychic advice through 900 telephone numbers.
• The eighth defendant, Stacy Lescht, worked with an investigative news show. She misrepresented herself as an employee of the plaintiff in another office and infiltrated the PMG office. She recorded conversations between the plaintiff’s employees via a hidden camera and microphone.
• Thereafter, these recordings were broadcast nationally. The plaintiff filed a Third Amendment complaint against the defendants, alleging fraud, conspiracy to eavesdrop, and recording confidential information.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the recordings caused them damages. The defendants committed fraud by misrepresenting facts with the knowledge to falsify and cause damage. He further submitted that the defendants caused spoilation of evidence and eavesdropping.
• The defendants’ counsel argued that the plaintiff could not prove the claim of fraud as they had not shown any resulting damage. Further, Section 340(3) of the California Code of Civil Procedure time-bars the plaintiff’s claim by 1-year statute of limitation. The claim of spoilation of evidence applies only when evidence is destroyed. The eavesdropping claim is not applicable as the defendant was a party to the conversation.

Opinion of the Bench

• The claims of federal eavesdropping are non-applicable. The plaintiff has not proved that the defendants used the recordings for criminal activity. Also, there is not sufficient evidence to support the fraud claim.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the suit in favour of the defendants.