Thompson v. Dulaney
| Decision Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-CV-676-B.,90-CV-676-B. |
| Citation | 838 F. Supp. 1535 |
| Parties | James THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. Denise DULANEY; Elsie Dulaney; Phil Dulaney; Dale Brounstein; Russ Sardo; Robert Moody; and Jerry Kobelin, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James Thompson, pro se.
Roger P. Christensen, Lynn S. Davies, Salt Lake City, UT, Thomas S. Taylor, Provo, UT, for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The above-entitled matter having come before the Court upon Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Court having reviewed the materials on file herein, having heard argument from the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
Factual Background
In 1989, defendant Denise Dulaney and her husband James Thompson obtained a divorce in Utah state court. During subsequent custody proceedings, Denise Dulaney attempted to introduce transcripts of several phone conversations she had recorded with a wiretap between Thompson and the couple's then three and five year old children, who lived with Dulaney. In 1988, when these conversations were recorded, divorce proceedings between Dulaney and Thompson had commenced and Dulaney and the children were living with Dulaney's parents, Phil and Elsie Dulaney, in Oregon.
Prior to trial, Thompson filed a motion in limine to exclude the transcripts of the wiretapped conversations from the custody proceeding. The motion was not granted,1 and the transcripts were introduced. At the custody hearing, the court determined that both Thompson and Dulaney were fit to be named guardian of the children, but nonetheless awarded Denise Dulaney custody.
In 1990, Thompson initiated the present suit against the seven above-named defendants,2 alleging violations of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (1968 & West Supp.1993) ("Title III"),3 conspiracies to violate Title III, and numerous state law claims, both statutory and common law. He sought several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
After discovery commenced, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and this Court heard oral argument on those motions on May 3, 1991. In an order dated May 29, 1991, this Court, relying on Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1977), concluded that this case was outside the purview of Title III since it was a "purely domestic conflict," id. at 679, and judgment was entered for all the defendants on Thompson's claims. Given the Court's disposition on the sole federal cause of action, there was no longer a basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims, and they were dismissed accordingly.
Thompson appealed the Court's ruling on summary judgment to the Tenth Circuit, which, on July 23, 1992, issued an order affirming in part and reversing in part this Court's order granting summary judgment. See Thompson v. Dulaney, 970 F.2d 744 (10th Cir.1992). The appeals court remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (1968 & West Supp.1993), over the state-law claims by way of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (West Supp.1993), venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (West Supp.1993), and no objections have been raised to this Court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 56(c), a trial court hearing a motion for summary judgment is simply required to determine if there are any "genuine issues of material fact," and whether the moving party is entitled to "judgment as a matter of law." FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court must therefore make two separate inquiries. First, are the facts in dispute "material" facts, and if so, does the dispute over these material fact create any "genuine" issues for trial.
In determining materiality, "only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Carey v. United States Postal Service, 812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir.1987). Factual disputes over collateral matters will therefore not preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510 (citation omitted).
If the Court concludes that the fact in dispute is a "material" fact, then the Court must determine whether the issue is a "genuine" issue of fact that must be resolved by a jury. This requires a court to assess whether the evidence presented is such "that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. This inquiry focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence as well as its weight. In the absence of "any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint," First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1593, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968), summary judgment is warranted. The Supreme Court has noted that assessing whether an issue is genuine under Rule 56(c) is similar to standard used for deciding a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, formerly known as a directed verdict, under Rule 50(a). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (citation omitted). The primary difference between a Rule 56(c) motion and a Rule 50(a) motion is procedural; the former is based on documentary evidence while the latter is based on evidence admitted at trial. Bill Johnson's Restaurant, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2171, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983). Thus, it is apparent that the ultimate determination is whether reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence; if they cannot, then there is no "genuine" issue of fact and summary judgment is proper.
This approach to ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, adopted in the summary judgment context, represents a repudiation of what had been known as the "scintilla of evidence" standard. Under that standard, the production of any evidence, without regard to its probative value, which created an issue of fact, required a trial judge to deny a motion for a directed verdict and let the jury decide. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 () (citations omitted).
The trial court's role is limited to determining the existence vel non of a genuine issue of material fact, and nothing more. The Court does not assess the credibility or the probative weight of the evidence that established the existence of the genuine issue of material fact. The determination that a true factual dispute exists means, ipso facto, that summary judgment may not be entered "as a matter of law," and the case must therefore be submitted to a jury.
The initial burden of production under Rule 56(c) is on the moving party. That party must make a sufficient "showing" to the trial court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. The movant satisfies its burden by producing evidence that is admissible as to content, not form, identifying those portions of the record, including the pleadings and any material obtained during discovery, that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Id. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53.
If the movant meets its burden of production, then the burden of production shifts to the nonmoving party. That party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings" to avoid summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510 (emphasis added). The nonmoving party is now put to their proof; they must "do more than simply show that there is some meta-physical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citations omitted). They must make a "sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 25; Carey, 812 F.2d at 623. They must demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that the "evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." Id. at 623. In making this determination, the trial court must "examine the factual record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment." Dorrance v. McCarthy, 957 F.2d 761, 762 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir.1990)).
The Court will now apply these legal standards to the facts of the case before it.
In its order on remand, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of summary judgment. The appellate court specifically took the time to discuss and interpret Title III and to delineate what was necessary to establish a prima facie cause of action under that statute in an effort to provide this Court, and other courts, with guidance under this little-used statute. See Thompson, 970 F.2d at 749-50.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals can be broken down into three separate rulings: one on the conspiracy claims, one on the unlawful wiretapping claims, and one on the use or disclosure claims.
The grant of summary judgment on Thompson's claims that Phil and Elsie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Wright v. David L.
...9 David L. cites no law in support of his position. The closest case we can find to support David L.'s contention is Thompson v. Dulaney, 838 F.Supp. 1535 (D.Utah 1993). In Thompson, Denise Dulaney and James Thompson were living apart from one another and in the process of getting a divorce......
-
Peavy v. Harman
...1994), aff'd, 93 F.3d 428 (8th Cir.1996) (defendant did not use tapes by merely overhearing them). But cf. Thompson v. Dulaney, 838 F.Supp. 1535, 1547 (D.Utah 1993).16 Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary must be The media defendants further contend that copying and transcribing the tapes ......
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...the court held that Sandra did not violate Title III. The court based this decision on the reasoning found in Thompson v. Dulaney, 838 F.Supp. 1535 (D.Utah 1993), and Silas v. Silas, 680 So.2d 368 The district court in Thompson was the first court to address the authority of a parent to vic......
-
Spetalieri v. Kavanaugh
...recover a maximum of $20,000 in damages as follows: (1) $10,000 for the violation of having "used" the tape, see Thompson v. Dulaney, 838 F.Supp. 1535, 1547 (D.Ut.1993) (listening to a tape constitutes a "use"), regardless of the actual number of uses, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(d); and (2) $10,000 f......