context: Although Wife disclosed some of Husband's emails to Cooke and BJR, who allegedly used the emails to obtain additional information about Husband's affair, the SCA does not punish such conduct. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to Wife, Cooke, and BJR.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that an ISP was not liable under sections 2511 and 2520 of the ECPA for aiding and abetting defendants who intercepted and disclosed oral communications
citation_a.sentence: See Fischer, 207 F.Supp.2d at 926 (granting summary judgment to defendants who did not access plaintiffs email accounts); Cardinal Health, 582 F.Supp.2d at 977-79 (same); see also Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that civil liability under section 2707 does not extend to those who aid, abet, or conspire with a person or entity engaging in a violation of section 2702); Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.2003) (holding that an ISP was not liable under sections 2511 and 2520 of the ECPA for aiding and abetting defendants who intercepted and disclosed oral communications).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 207 F.Supp.2d 926, 926
citation_b.parenthetical: granting summary judgment to defendants who did not access plaintiffs email accounts
citation_b.sentence: See Fischer, 207 F.Supp.2d at 926 (granting summary judgment to defendants who did not access plaintiffs email accounts); Cardinal Health, 582 F.Supp.2d at 977-79 (same); see also Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that civil liability under section 2707 does not extend to those who aid, abet, or conspire with a person or entity engaging in a violation of section 2702); Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.2003) (holding that an ISP was not liable under sections 2511 and 2520 of the ECPA for aiding and abetting defendants who intercepted and disclosed oral communications).