Bailey v. Bailey
2008 WL 324156
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Case Number 07-11672
Before District Judge S. Cox
Decided on February 06, 2008

Relevancy of the Case: Does the husband’s access to his wife’s email account by obtaining a password through a key logger violate the Stored Communications Act?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522
• The Michigan Compiled Laws, § 750.539a, 540

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff (wife) and the defendant (husband) married in 1987 and had three children. The defendant was suspicious of the plaintiff’s excessive use of the Internet.
• He found messages of a sexual nature on his wife’s email account. He installed a key logger on both home computers. The key logger recorded every keystroke made on the computers and stored it in a text file. In this manner, he learned her passwords.
• He filed for divorce in 2006, and the wife lost custody of her children.
• She filed the present plaint in 2007, alleging crimes committed by him to obtain certain evidence and infliction of emotional distress.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that he violated the federal wiretapping laws by obtaining access to her emails through a key logger. The counsel also claimed the invasion of her privacy and the international infliction of distress.
• The defendant’s counsel argued that the Stored Communications Act was not applicable as she had already accessed emails and messages. He argued that Michigan’s eavesdropping statute is not applicable as the key logger software is not a device as contemplated in the statute. The plaintiff cannot establish a claim of intrusion upon seclusion as the actions are not objectionable to a reasonable person. He had a right to monitor her computer activities in the interest of himself, the plaintiff, and their children.

Opinion of the Bench

• Under the federal wiretapping laws, a civil cause of action arises only when the statute is violated, resulting in the interception of a person’s wire, oral, or electronic communication.
• The plaintiff’s allegations do not amount to eavesdropping. However, the plaintiff has a general right to privacy in her email account.
• Moreover, the public disclosure of the plaintiff’s email is not considered unreasonable publicity. The fitness of a parent for their child’s custody is a legitimate concern for the public.

Final Decision

• The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, and Yagyanseni Acharya, an undergraduate student at VIT School of Law, Chennai, prepared this case summary during their internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.