WPCa> c#vd}rzh+}RsdɁxDVk`|GD#:2`<V[|rl£,g8Gҕڷ ?=7lv&h:` *Llݾ卑w!8}t!P@u; vDf xb##VU6}iºWF@p*Kǃ$!4qʢkfц:4(`+ۥ oq sd!#uaӼ"."&ҷ1kCVBjO.E%u]U_濸(W[-j|b035B cr4r0˦:W^\+7 ]m>g0 17!a̾ */-g#/)]18Q/ ՖWBj {r7ha)b3F:: d \4j"wkdwD|*Q~~gm;x ŧ/v#tUN5 % 0x ^  w 4 % 4 m6 NM O  08UzN 0$ ^-U0UBbU>DC 0 N8 uU=8 0D""&8&UF(E2)2)f4)a6)J)J)J)h,a/hB2UN4=4&57*[7[777777>J9J9J9,;2;;;;;;N;;;;;;;^;bF<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<F<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N< BD>HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular(P?$USUS.,XXe.s Y.s:i+003|xU  $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  5    _=idd= ` Pharmatrak'scookiesexpiredafterninetydays.   $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  6    _=idd= ` Pharmatrakemployeessupplementedtheinformation  recordedonitsaccesslogs(andsortedintodatabases)by  conductingoutsideresearch(e.g.,connectingamidyearspikein \  trafficonaparticular_webpage_Ԁwiththelaunchofamajoronline  advertisingcampaign). (l3v$ ?!USUS.,XX   ._ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  10    =idd=#XXXX ` PlaintiffsclaimintheirbriefthatPharmatrakalso  collectedSocialSecuritynumbers.Weareunabletotellfromthe  recordwhetherthisisso. p_ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  4    =idd=#XXXX ` M._Enzer_,"GlossaryofInternetTerms,"  (defininganddiscussing  cookies).Abrowser,inturn,isauser'sinterfacetotheWeb.(G2$ ?!USUS.,XX    =dd=  XXhX  0  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<\( 9Z+Courier <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular : $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  1    _=idd= ` XXXXAnIPaddressistheuniqueaddressassignedtoevery  machineontheinternet.AnIPaddressconsistsoffournumbers  separatedbydots,e.g.,166.132.78.215.(O$ . v&USUS., XX   _ԄTheverboteninformationwasgleanedfromgetmethodURLs  ЄThegetmethodURLwasgenerateddynamicallyatthetimeof  theinterception. k $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  16    _=idd= ` #XXXXButcf.UnitedStatesv.Phillips,564F.2d32,34n.2  (8thCir.1977)(defendantincriminalprosecutionbearsburdenof  proofforstatutoryexceptions).#XXX#XU#<  9Z+ Courier New  _ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  13    =idd=#XXXX ` Originally,eightlawsuitswerefiledintheDistrictof  MassachusettsandtheSouthernDistrictofNewYork. Thetwo  lawsuitsintheDistrictofMassachusettswerefiledonAugust18, j 2000. OnApril18,2001,theJudicialPanelonMultiDistrict @ LitigationissuedanordertransferringthesixNewYorkcasesto f theDistrictofMassachusetts. Thepurportedclass,whichhas < neverbeencertified,consistsofallpersonswhovisitedoneof   thedefendants'_websites_Ԁ"andwho,asaresultthereof,havehad   Pharmatrak'cookies'placedupontheircomputersandhavehad n  informationaboutthemgatheredbyPharmatrak." (#$  0   _ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  15    =idd=#XXXX ` Atthehearing,plaintiffs alsosoughtadditional  documentarydiscoveryonthegroundthattodatedefendantshad  turnedoveronlythosedocumentsthatsupportedtheirdefenses. In j response,thecourtinstructedbothpartiesto"turnover... @ [_a]nything_Ԁthathastodowiththecase." Thedistrictjudgeadded f that,ifdefendantsdidnotcomplywiththisinstruction,then < plaintiffsshouldrequestacourtorderorsanctions.  . $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  8    _=idd= ` XXXXThemostpopulardomainextensionsare.com(usedbyfor  profitentities),.edu(academicentities),.gov(government),and  .org(notforprofit).Q 9Z+.Courier New RegularTABLE A  $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  9    _=idd= ` Differentusersmighthavethesamecookie(if,say,  familymemberssharedacomputerandbrowser)oroneusermight  havemultiplecookies(if,forexample,heusedseparateworkand \ homecomputerstovisitsitesemploying_NETcompare_,orifhe 2 revisiteda_NETcompare_Ԁsiteafterhisfirstcookieexpired).  $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  7    _=idd= ` XXXXThe_NETcompare_Ԁinstallationguidealsosays,"Inthe  future,wemaydevelopproductsandserviceswhichcollectdata  that,whenusedinconjunctionwiththetrackingdatabase,could \ enableadirectidentificationofcertainindividualvisitors." #XXXXT#  $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  2    _=idd= ` XXXXURLs(UniformResourceLocators)areuniqueaddresses  indicatingthelocationofspecificdocumentsontheWeb.The  webpageauserviewedimmediatelypriortovisitingaparticular \ websiteisknownasthereferrerURL.Searchenginessuchas 2 Yahoo!arecommonreferrerURLs. ^_ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  17    =idd=#XXXX ` Forexample,seethedistinctionbetweengeneralintent  andspecificintentdescribedinUnitedStatesv._Whiffen_,121F.3d  18,2021(1stCir.1997).(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular 3 $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  12    _=idd= ` XXXXAnexampleistheregistrationpageattheNewYorkTimes  website,whichasksforauser'semailaddress,dateofbirth,  income,andotherinformation.http://www.yahoo.chttp://www.yahoo.com _ USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  11    =idd=#XXXX ` _Detrol_Ԁisabladdercontrolmedication. 4 $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  3    _=idd=Ӏ ` HTMLisacodinglanguageusedtocreatedocumentsfor  theWeb.M._Enzer_,"GlossaryofInternetTerms,"  .http://www.pfizer.comhttp://www.pharmacia.comL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -  $USUS., XX   =idd=  XXhX  14    _=idd= ` XXXXGlaxo_Wellcome_ԀandSmithKlineBeechammergedin2000.#XXXXU# d ?!USUS., XX   _  *,X` XX*TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !JXX     8 dd8.}J=XXdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#.X8]X.}P#.G X.X8]  FortheFirstCircuit#"  .G# #"  "##XX #"#  ~Au$) ` dE< ` A   #XXX#X#No.022138 K  @  INREPHARMATRAK,INC.PRIVACYLITIGATION,  G    @@dd NOAH_BLUMOFE_,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarly   situated;ROBBARRING;JIMDARBY;KAREN_GRASSMAN_,onbehalfof y  herselfandallotherssimilarlysituated;ROBIN_MCCLARY_; O  HARRISPERLMAN;MARCUS_SCHROERS_, %u  I  Plaintiffs,Appellants, ! @@tt)v. } @@PHARMATRAK,INC.;_GLOCAL_ԀCOMMUNICATIONS,_LTD_., )y Defendants,Appellees, % _PFIZER_,INC.;_PHARMACIA_ԀCORP.;SMITHKLINEBEECHAMPLC;  GLAXO_WELLCOME_ԀPLC;DOES1100;AMERICANHOMEPRODUCTSCORP.; W _NOVARTIS_ԀCORP.,@@pp -} Defendants. ) Au$) ` dE<` A  @@ddAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT j  FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS @ ! @@dd[Hon.JosephL.Tauro,U.S.DistrictJudge] !f" Au$) ` dE<"` A "$ @@'Before #& @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, S% ( Bownes,SeniorCircuitJudge, )&y!) andHoward,CircuitJudge. &O"* Au$) ` dE<(` A (#,   ` AdamJ.LevittwithwhomDanielW._Krasner_,DavidA.P. )$. _Brower_,Wolf_Haldenstein_ԀAdlerFreeman&_Herz_ԀLLC,SethR.Lesser, f*%/ AndrewM._Gschwind_,Bernstein_Litowitz_ԀBerger&_Grossmann_Ԁ_LLP_, <+&0 MelvynI.Weiss,MichaelM._Buchman_,DennisStewart,WilliamJ. ,b'1 DoyleII,_Milberg_ԀWeiss_Bershad_ԀHynes&_Lerach_Ԁ_LLP_,NancyFreeman ,8(2 _Gans_,andMoulton&_Gans_,P.C.wereonbriefforappellants. -)3?L  `  ` Seymour_Glanzer_withwhomCarmelaN.Edmundsand  _Dickstein_ԀShapiroMorin&_Oshinsky_Ԁ_LLP_wereonbriefforappellees. \ *&u'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,A dd , dd ,( dd +  XX  SIl n@37749n@S_May9,2003 B  _ RHC h" n@37749 n@ R(l   (  * !I$     J8XXdd8=XXdXXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thiscaseraisesimportant  questionsaboutthescopeofprivacyprotectionaffordedinternet x usersundertheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyActof1986 $t (ECPA),18U.S.C.2511,2520(2000).    ` Insum,pharmaceuticalcompaniesinviteduserstovisit |  theirwebsitestolearnabouttheirdrugsandtoobtainrebates. ( x  Anenterprisingcompany,Pharmatrak,soldaservice,called $  "NETcompare,"tothesepharmaceuticalcompanies.Thatservice   accessedinformationabouttheinternetusersandcollectedcertain ,|  informationmeanttopermitthepharmaceuticalcompaniestodo ( intraindustrycomparisonsofwebsitetrafficandusage.Mostof  thepharmaceuticalcompanieswereemphaticthattheydidnotwant 0 personaloridentifyingdataabouttheirwebsiteuserstobe , collected.InconnectionwiththeircontractingtouseNETcompare,  theysoughtandreceivedassurancesfromPharmatrakthatsuchdata 4 collectionwouldnotoccur.Asitturnedout,somesuchpersonal 0 andidentifyingdatawasfound,usingeasilycustomizedsearch   programs,onPharmatrak'scomputers.Plaintiffs,onbehalfofthe 8!" purportedclassofinternetuserswhosedataPharmatrakcollected, "4$ suedbothPharmatrakandthepharmaceuticalcompaniesasserting, $& interalia,thattheyinterceptedelectroniccommunicationswithout <&!( consent,inviolationoftheECPA. '8#*  ` Thedistrictcourtenteredsummaryjudgmentfor )$, defendantsonthebasisthatPharmatrak'sactivitiesfellwithinan @+&. exceptiontothestatutewhereonepartyconsentstoan  interception.Thecourtfoundtheclientpharmaceuticalcompanies \ hadconsentedbycontractingwithPharmatrakandsothisprotected X Pharmatrak.SeeInrePharmatrak,Inc.PrivacyLitig.,220F.   Supp.2d4,12(D.Mass.2002).TheplaintiffsdismissedallECPA `  claimsastothepharmaceuticalcompanies.Thisappealconcerns  \  onlytheclaimthatPharmatrakviolatedTitleIoftheECPA.    ` Weholdthatthedistrictcourtincorrectlyinterpreted d  the"consent"exceptiontotheECPA;wealsoholdthatPharmatrak `  "intercepted"thecommunicationunderthestatute.Wereverseand   remandforfurtherproceedings.Thisdoesnotmeanthat h plaintiffs'casewillprevail:thereremainissueswhichshouldbe d addressedonremand,particularlyastowhetherdefendant'sconduct  wasintentionalwithinthemeaningoftheECPA. l   I. h !XXXX ` #XXXX!#PharmatrakprovideditsNETcompareserviceto  pharmaceuticalcompaniesincludingAmericanHomeProducts, p  Pharmacia,SmithKlineBeecham,Pfizer,andNovartisfrom !l" approximatelyJune1998toNovember2000. Thepharmaceutical "$ clientsterminatedtheircontractswithPharmatrakshortlyafter $& thislawsuitwasfiledinAugust2000. Asaresult,Pharmatrakwas <&!( forcedtoceaseitsoperationsbyDecember1,2000.  '8#*  ` NETcomparewasmarketedasatoolthatwouldallowa )$, companytocomparetrafficonandusageofdifferentpartsofits @+&. _websitewiththesameinformationfromitscompetitors'websites.  ThekeyadvantageofNETcompareoverofftheshelfsoftwarewasits \ capacitytoalloweachclienttocompareitsperformancewiththat X ofotherclientsfromthesameindustry.     ` NETcomparewasdesignedtorecordthewebpagesauser `  viewedatclients'websites;howlongtheuserspentoneach  \  webpage;thevisitor'spaththroughthesite(includingherpoints   ofentryandexit);thevisitor'sIPaddress; #  1      ׀and,forlater d  versions,thewebpagetheuserviewedimmediatelybeforearriving `  attheclient'ssite(i.e.,the"referrerURL").XXXX, #  2      #XXXX(# This   informationgatheringwasnotvisibletousersofthe h pharmaceuticalclients'websites. AccordingtoWesSonnenreich, d formerChiefTechnologyOfficerofPharmatrak,andTimothyW.  Macinta,formerManagingDirectorforTechnologyofPharmatrak, l NETcomparewasnotdesignedtocollectanypersonalinformation h  whatsoever.    ` NETcompareoperatedasfollows. Apharmaceuticalclient  installedNETcomparebyaddingfivetotenlinesofHTML8 #  3      ׀codeto \  eachwebpageitwishedtotrackandconfiguringthepagesto X interfacewithPharmatrak'stechnology. Whenauservisitedthe   websiteofaPharmatrakclient,Pharmatrak'sHTMLcodeinstructed `  theuser'scomputertocontactPharmatrak'swebserverandretrieve  \  fromitatiny,invisiblegraphicimageknownasa"clearGIF"(or   a"webbug").ThepurposeoftheclearGIFwastocausetheuser's d  computertocommunicatedirectlywithPharmatrak'swebserver. `  Whentheuser'scomputerrequestedtheclearGIF,Pharmatrak'sweb   serversrespondedbyeitherplacingoraccessinga"persistent h cookie"ontheuser'scomputer.Onauser'sfirstvisittoa d webpagemonitoredbyNETcompare,Pharmatrak'sserverswouldplant  acookieontheuser'scomputer.Iftheuserhadalreadyvisited l aNETcomparewebpage,thenPharmatrak'sserverswouldaccessthe h informationontheexistingcookie.   ` Acookieisapieceofinformationsentbyawebserver p  toawebbrowserthatthebrowsersoftwareisexpectedtosaveand !l" tosendbackwheneverthebrowsermakesadditionalrequestsofthe "$ server #  4      ׀(suchaswhentheuservisitsadditionalwebpagesatthe t$& sameorrelatedsites).Apersistentcookieisonethatdoesnot  expireattheendofanonlinesession.Cookiesarewidelyusedon \ theinternetbyreputablewebsitestopromoteconvenienceand X customization.Cookiesoftenstoreuserpreferences,loginand   registrationinformation,orinformationrelatedtoanonline `  "shoppingcart."Cookiesmayalsocontainuniqueidentifiersthat  \  allowawebsitetodifferentiateamongusers.    ` EachPharmatrakcookiecontainedauniquealphanumeric d  identifierthatallowedPharmatraktotrackauserasshenavigated `  throughaclient'ssiteandtoidentifyarepeatusereachtimeshe   visitedclients'sites. Ifapersonvisited4; O  5  www.pfizer.com65O6  7 06ԀinJune h 2000and4< 8 O  5  www.pharmacia.com66O6  7 0 7ԀinJuly2000,forexample,thenthe d persistentcookieonhercomputerwouldindicatetoPharmatrakthat  thesamecomputerhadbeenusedtovisitbothsites.  #  5      As l NETcomparetrackedauserthroughawebsite,itusedJavaScriptand h aJavaApplettorecordinformationsuchastheURLstheuser  visited.ThisdatawasrecordedontheaccesslogsofPharmatrak's p  webservers. !l"  ` Pharmatraksentmonthlyreportstoitsclients "$ juxtaposingthedatacollectedbyNETcompareaboutall t$& pharmaceuticalclients. f #  6      ׀ Thesereportscoveredtopicssuchasthe  &p!( mostheavilyusedpartsofaparticularsite;whichsitewas  receivingthemosthitsinparticularareassuchasinvestoror \ mediarelations;andthemostimportantlinkstoasite. X  ` Themonthlyreportsdidnotcontainanypersonally   identifiableinformationaboutusers. Theonlyinformation `  providedbyPharmatraktoclientsabouttheirusersandtrafficwas  \  containedinthereports(andexecutivesummariesthereof). Slides   fromaPharmatrakmarketingpresentationdidsaythecompanywould d  breakdataoutintocategoriesandprovide"userprofiles."+< #  7      In `  practice,theaggregatedemographicinformationinthereportswas   limitedtothepercentagesofusersfromdifferentcountries;the h percentagesofuserswithdifferentdomainextensions(i.e.,the d percentagesofusersoriginatingfromforprofit,government,  academic,orothernotforprofitorganizations);"\ #  8      ׀ andthe l percentagesoffirsttimeversusrepeatusers. Anexampleofa h NETcompare"userprofile"is:"TheaverageNovartisvisitorisa   firsttimevisitorfromtheU.S.,visitingfroma.comdomain."  p   ` WhileitwasmarketingNETcomparetoprospective   pharmaceuticalclients,Pharmatrakrepeatedlytoldthemthat \ NETcomparedidnotcollectpersonallyidentifiableinformation. It X saiditstechnologycouldnotcollectpersonalinformation, and   specificallyprovidedthattheinformationitgatheredcouldnotbe `  usedtoidentifyparticularusersbyname .Intheiraffidavitsand  \  depositions,executivesofPharmatrakclientsconsistentlysaid   thattheybelievedNETcomparedidnotcollectpersonalinformation, d  andthattheydidnotlearnotherwiseuntiltheonsetof `  litigation,atwhichpointtheypromptlyterminatedtheservice.    Some,ifnotall,pharmaceuticalclientsexplicitlyconditioned h theirpurchaseofNETcompareonPharmatrak'sguaranteesthatit d wouldnotcollectusers'personalinformation.Forexample,  Pharmacia'sApril2000contractwithPharmatrakprovidedthat l NETcomparewouldnotcollectpersonallyidentifiableinformation h fromusers. MichaelSonnenreich,ChiefExecutiveOfficerof  Pharmatrak,statedunequivocallyathisdepositionthatnoneofhis   company'sclientsconsentedtothecollectionofpersonally 8!" identifiableinformation.  "4$  ` Pharmatrakneverthelesscollectedsomepersonal $& informationonasmallnumberofusers.Pharmatrakdistributed <&!( approximately18.7millionpersistentcookiesthroughNETcompare. '8#*  Thenumberofuniquecookiesprovidesaroughestimateofthe )$, numberofusersPharmatrakmonitored.( #  9      ׀Plaintiffs'expertwasable   todevelopindividualprofilesforjust232users. \  ` Thefollowingpersonalinformationwasfoundon X Pharmatrakservers:names,addresses,telephonenumbers,email   addresses,datesofbirth,genders,insurancestatuses,education `  levels,occupations,medicalconditions,medications,andreasons  \  forvisitingtheparticularwebsite. #  10      ׀Pharmatrakalsooccasionally   recordedthesubject,sender,anddateofthewebbasedemail d  messageauserwasreadingimmediatelypriortovisitingthe `  websiteofaPharmatrakclient. Mostoftheindividualprofiles   assembledbyplaintiffs'expertcontainsomebutnotallofthis  information.  0  ` Thepersonalinformationin197ofthe232userprofiles , wasrecordedduetoaninteractionbetweenNETcompareandcomputer  codewrittenbyonepharmaceuticalclient,Pharmacia,foroneof 4 itswebpages.StartingonorbeforeAugust18,2000andending 0 sometimebetweenDecember2,2000andFebruary6,2001,theclient    Pharmaciausedthe"get"methodtotransmitinformationfroma 8!" rebateformonitsDetrol3 #  11      ׀website;thewebpagewassubsequently   modifiedtousethe"post"methodoftransmission.Thiswasthe \ sourceofthepersonalinformationcollectedbyPharmatrakfrom X usersoftheDetrolwebsite.    ` Webserversusetwomethodstotransmitinformation `  enteredintoonlineforms:thegetmethodandthepostmethod.The  \  getmethodisgenerallyusedforshortformssuchasthe"Search"   boxatYahoo!andotheronlinesearchengines.Thepostmethodis d  normallyusedforlongerformsandformssolicitingprivate `  information./f #  12      ׀Whenaserverusesthegetmethod,theinformation   enteredintotheonlineformbecomesappendedtothenextURL. For h example,ifauserenters"respiratoryproblems"intothequerybox 0 atasearchengine,40O  5  6ETOYT   7T41O  5  6TOT   7,Uandthesearchenginetransmitsthis , informationusingthegetmethod,thenthewords"respiratory"and  "problems"willbeappendedtothequerystringattheendofthe 4 URLofthewebpageshowingthesearchresults.Bycontrast,ifa 0 websitetransmitsinformationviathepostmethod,thenthat   informationdoesnotappearintheURL.SinceNETcomparewas 8!" designedtorecordthefullURLsofthewebpagesauserviewed "4$  immediatelybeforeandduringavisittoaclient'ssite, $& Pharmatrakrecordedpersonalinformationtransmittedusingtheget  method. \   ` ThereisnoevidencePharmatrakinstructeditsclients X nottousethegetmethod.Thedetailedinstallationinstructions   Pharmatrakprovidedtopharmaceuticalclientsignoreentirelythe `  issueofthedifferenttransmissionmethods.   \   ` InadditiontotheproblemattheDetrolwebsite,there   wasalsoanotherinstanceinwhichapharmaceuticalclientusedthe d  getmethodtotransmitpersonalinformationenteredintoanonline `  form. TheotherpersonalinformationonPharmatrak'sserverswas   recordedasaresultofsoftwareerrors. Theseerrorswereabug h inapopularemailprogram(reportedinMay2001andsubsequently 0 fixed)andanaberrantwebbrowser.  , @88)II.    ` OnJune28,2001,plaintiffsfiledanamended 4 consolidatedclassactioncomplaint #  13      ׀againstPharmatrak;itsparent 0 company,GlocalCommunications,Ltd.;andfivepharmaceutical   companies:AmericanHomeProductsCorp.,GlaxoWellcome,Inc., 8!" Pfizer,Inc.,PharmaciaCorp.,andSmithKlineBeechamCorp.Y #  14        PlaintiffsallegedninecountsincludingviolationofTitleIof \ theECPA,18U.S.C.2510etseq.;violationofTitleIIofthe X ECPA,18U.S.C.2701etseq.;violationoftheComputerFraudand   AbuseAct,18U.S.C.1030;violationofMass.Gen.Lawsch.272, `  99(2000);violationofMass.Gen.Lawsch.93A(2001);invasion  \  ofprivacy;trespasstochattelsandconversion;andunjust   enrichment.  d   ` Pharmatrak,Glocal,andanumberofthepharmaceutical `  defendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentinAugust2001.Insupport   oftheirmotion,PharmatrakandGlocalsubmittedaffidavitsby h Macinta,Pharmatrak'sformerManagingDirectorforTechnology,and d WesSonnenreich,Pharmatrak'sformerCTO,aswellaswritten  descriptionsofitstechnologyandinstallationmethodandasample l monthlyreportdeliveredtopharmaceuticalclients. The h pharmaceuticaldefendantsalsosubmittedaffidavitsandother  documentsinsupportoftheirmotions. p   ` Plaintiffsarguedthatbeforesummaryjudgmentthey !l" shouldbeallowedtoconductdiscoveryonPharmatrak'sserversand "$ toconductFed.R.Civ.P.30(b)(6)depositionsonemployeesof t$& eachdefendant.Discoveryoftheserverswasnecessary,plaintiffs  &p!( argued,todeterminewhatinformationNETcomparehadextractedfrom '#* websiteusersandtransferredtoPharmatrak'scomputers. Ata x)$, hearingonDecember3,2001,thecourtordereddiscoveryofthe  serversandRule30(b)(6)depositionsofthedefendants.  #  15       \   ` TheplaintiffsemployedcomputerscientistC.Matthew X Curtinandhiscompany,Interhack,toanalyzePharmatrak'sservers   betweenDecember17,2001andJanuary18,2002. Inaboutanhour, `  Curtinwrotethreecustomcomputerprograms,including  \  "getneedle.pl,"toextractandorganizepersonalinformationon   Pharmatrak'swebserveraccesslogs,whichhe"colloquiallytermed d  'haystacks.'" Curtinthencrossreferencedtheinformationhe `  extractedwithothersourcessuchasinternettelephonebooks.     PlaintiffsalsoconductedtheRule30(b)(6)depositions.   ` Afterdiscoverywascompleted,Pharmatrak,Glocal,and 0 otherdefendantsrenewedtheirmotionsforsummaryjudgment; , plaintiffsopposedthesemotionsandmovedforsummaryjudgment  againstPharmatrakandGlocalontheclaimbasedonTitleIofthe 4 ECPA. 0   ` Followingahearingonthemotions,thedistrictcourt   issuedamemorandumandorderonAugust13,2002denying 8!" plaintiffs'motionforsummaryjudgmentandgrantinginpart "4$ defendants'summaryjudgmentmotions.InrePharmatrakPrivacy $& Litig.,220F.Supp.2dat15.Thecourtheldthattheclaim  againstPharmatrakunderTitleIoftheECPAwasprecludedbecause \ "thePharmaceuticalDefendantsconsentedtotheplacementofcode X forPharmatrak'sNETcompareserviceontheirwebsites."Id.at12.   Thecourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoalldefendantsonallfederal `  lawcausesofaction;itthendeclinedtoretainjurisdictionover  \  thestatelawcausesofactionanddismissedthemwithout   prejudice.Id.at15.XXXX  d   @(III. `  #XXXX o#A.StandardofReview    ` Thiscourtreviewsentryofsummaryjudgmentdenovo. h DominguezCruzv.SuttleCaribe,Inc.,202F.3d424,428(1stCir. d 2000).Thefactthatallpartiesmovedforsummaryjudgmentdoes  notchangethestandardofreview.Segrets,Inc.v.Gillman l KnitwearCo.,207F.3d56,61(1stCir.2000).Weviewtherecord h inthelightmostfavorabletothepartyopposingsummaryjudgment,  indulgingallreasonableinferencesinthatparty'sfavor. p  Euromotion,Inc.v.BMWofN.Am.,Inc.,136F.3d866,869(1st !l" Cir.1998).Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereisno "$ genuineissueofmaterialfactandthemovingpartyisentitledto t$& judgmentasamatteroflaw.UnitedParcelServ.v.Flores  &p!(  Galarza,318F.3d323,330(1stCir.2003). '#*  ` Wealsoreviewadistrictcourt'sinterpretationofa  statutedenovo.Brysonv.Shumway,308F.3d79,84(1stCir. \ 2002). X  B.ElementsoftheECPACauseofAction     ` ECPAamendedtheFederalWiretapActbyextendingtodata `  andelectronictransmissionsthesameprotectionalreadyafforded  \  tooralandwirecommunications.1R.T.Nimmer,FederalStatutory   Restrictions,inInformationLaw,ch.8,para.34,at868(2002). d  TheparamountobjectiveoftheWiretapActistoprotect `  effectivelytheprivacyofcommunications.Gelbardv.United   States,408U.S.41,48(1972);accordUnitedStatesv.Vest,813 h F.2d477,481(1stCir.1987);seeBartnickiv.Vopper,532U.S. d 514,52324(2001).    ` ThepostECPAWiretapActprovidesaprivaterightof l actionagainstonewho"intentionallyintercepts,endeavorsto h intercept,orprocuresanyotherpersontointerceptorendeavorto  intercept,anywire,oral,orelectroniccommunication."18U.S.C. p  2511(1)(a);see18U.S.C.2520(providingaprivaterightof !l" action).TheWiretapActdefines"intercept"as"theauralor "$ otheracquisitionofthecontentsofanywire,electronic,ororal t$& communicationthroughtheuseofanyelectronic,mechanical,or  &p!( otherdevice."Id.2510(4).Thus,plaintiffsmustshowfive '#* elementstomaketheirclaimunderTitleIoftheECPA:thata x)$, defendant(1)intentionally(2)intercepted,endeavoredto $+t&. interceptorprocuredanotherpersontointerceptorendeavorto  intercept(3)thecontentsof(4)anelectroniccommunication(5) \ usingadevice.Thisshowingissubjecttocertainstatutory X exceptions,suchasconsent.    ` Initstrialandappellatecourtbriefs,Pharmatrak `  soughtsummaryjudgmentononlyoneelementof2511(1)(a),  \  interception,aswellasonthestatutoryconsentexception.We   addresstheseissuesbelow.Pharmatrakhasnotcontestedwhether d  itusedadeviceorobtainedthecontentsofanelectronic `  communication.Thisisappropriate.TheECPAadoptsa"broad,   functional"definitionofanelectroniccommunication.Brownv. h Waddell,50F.3d285,289(4thCir.1995).Thisdefinition d includes"anytransferofsigns,signals,writing,images,sounds,  data,orintelligenceofanynaturetransmittedinwholeorinpart l byawire,radio,electromagnetic,photoelectric,orphotooptical h systemthataffectsinterstateorforeigncommerce,"withcertain  exceptionsunrelatedtothiscase.18U.S.C.2510(12). p  Transmissionsofcompletedonlineforms,suchastheoneat !l" Pharmacia'sDetrolwebsite,tothepharmaceuticaldefendants "$ constituteelectroniccommunications.SeeUnitedStatesv. t$& Steiger,318F.3d1039,1047(11thCir.2003);Konopv.Hawaiian  &p!( Airlines,Inc.,302F.3d868,876(9thCir.2002). '#*  ` TheECPAalsosaysthat"'contents,'whenusedwith x)$, respecttoanywire,oral,orelectroniccommunication,includes $+t&. anyinformationconcerningthesubstance,purport,ormeaningof  thatcommunication."18U.S.C.2510(8).Thisdefinition \ encompassespersonallyidentifiableinformationsuchasaparty's X name,dateofbirth,andmedicalcondition.SeeGelbard,408U.S.   at51n.10.SeegenerallyNixv.O'Malley,160F.3d343,346n.3 `  (6thCir.1998)("federalwiretapstatute[]broadlydefine[s]  \  'contents'").Finally,itisclearthatPharmatrakreliedon   devicessuchasitswebserverstocaptureinformationfromusers. d  C.ConsentException `   ` Thereisapertinentstatutoryexceptionto2511(1)(a)   "whereoneofthepartiestothecommunicationhasgivenprior h consenttosuchinterceptionunlesssuchcommunicationis d interceptedforthepurposeofcommittinganycriminalortortious  act...."18U.S.C.2511(2)(d).Plaintiffs,ofcourse,bear l theburdenofestablishingaviolationoftheECPA.Williamsv. h Poulos,11F.3d271,28384(1stCir.1993)#XXXX.Ourcaselawis  unclearastowhohastheburdenofshowingthestatutoryexception p  forconsent.#XXX#X#UnitedStatesv.Lanoue,71F.3d966,981(1stCir. !l" 1995),suggeststheburdenisonthepartyseekingthebenefitof "$ theexception,herethedefendant.Lanoueheldthat,whenthe t$& defendantsoughtamistrialonthegroundsthatthegovernment  &p!( violated2511(1),theprosecutionhadtheburdentoestablishthe '#* statutorylawenforcementexception.Seealso#XXXXԀUnitedStatesv. x)$, Jones,839F.2d1041,1050(5thCir.1988)(whendefendantin $+t&. criminalprosecutionseekstosuppressinterceptedcommunications,  "theburdenisonthegovernmenttoproveconsent"pursuantto18 \ U.S.C.2511(2)(c)). #  16      However,thereislanguageinPouloswhich X couldbereadtosaythattheburdenisonthepartyassertinga   violationoftheAct.11F.3dat284.Theissueofwhohasthe `  burdentoshowconsentwasnotdirectlyaddressedin#XXX#X#GriggsRyanv.  \  Smith,904F.2d112(1stCir.1990),anearliercase#XXXX.#XXX#X"##XXXXԀ#XXX#Xk##XXXXԀWethink,at   leastfortheconsentexceptionundertheECPAincivilcases,that d  itmakesmoresensetoplacetheburdenofshowingconsentonthe `  partyseekingthebenefitoftheexception,andsohold.That   partyismorelikelytohaveevidencepertinenttotheissue#XXX#X#Ԁof h consent. PlaintiffsdonotallegethatPharmatrakactedwitha d criminalortortiouspurpose.Therefore,thequestionunderthe  exceptionislimitedtowhetherthepharmaceuticaldefendantsgave l consenttotheinterception.Becausethedistrictcourtdisposed h ofthecaseonthegroundsthatPharmatrak'sconductfellwithin  theconsentexception,westartthere. p   ` ThedistrictcourtadoptedPharmatrak'sargumentthatthe !l" onlyrelevantinquiryiswhetherthepharmaceuticalcompanies "$ consentedtousePharmatrak'sNETcompareservice,regardlessofhow t$& theserviceeventuallyoperated.Indoingso,thedistrictcourt  &p!( didnotapplythiscircuit'sgeneralstandardsforconsentunder '#* theWiretapActandtheECPAsetforthinGriggsRyan,904F.2d  112.Italsomisreadtwodistrictcourtopinionsonwhichit \ purportedtorely:Chancev.AvenueA,Inc.,165F.Supp.2d1153 X (W.D.Wash.2001),andInreDoubleClickInc.PrivacyLitigation,   154F.Supp.2d497(S.D.N.Y.2001). `   ` Thiscourtaddressedtheissueofconsentunderthe  \  WiretapActin GriggsRyan.Apartymayconsenttothe   interceptionofonlypartofacommunicationortotheinterception d  ofonlyasubsetofitscommunications.SeeGriggsRyan,904F.2d `  at11719."Thus,'areviewingcourtmustinquireintothe   dimensionsoftheconsentandthenascertainwhetherthe h interceptionexceededthoseboundaries.'"Gildayv.DuBois,124 d F.3d277,297(1stCir.1997)(quotingGriggsRyan,904F.2dat  119).Consentmaybeexplicitorimplied,butitmustbeactual l consentratherthanconstructiveconsent.Poulos,11F.3dat281 h 82;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Footman,215F.3d145,155(1stCir.  2000)("Thequestionofconsent,eitherexpressorimplied,may p  varywiththecircumstancesoftheparties.").Pharmatrakargues !l" thatithadimpliedconsentfromthepharmaceuticalcompanies. "$  ` Consent"shouldnotcasuallybeinferred."GriggsRyan, t$& 904F.2dat11718."Withoutactualnotice,consentcanonlybe  &p!( impliedwhenthesurroundingcircumstancesconvincinglyshowthat '#* thepartyknewaboutandconsentedtotheinterception."Berryv. x)$, Funk,146F.3d1003,1011(D.C.Cir.1998)(internalquotation $+t&. omitted);accordLanoue,71F.3dat981;seealsoWatkinsv.L.M.  Berry&Co.,704F.2d577,581(11thCir.1983)("[K]nowledgeof \ thecapabilityofmonitoringalonecannotbeconsideredimplied X consent.").    ` Thedistrictcourtmadeanerroroflaw,urgedonitby `  Pharmatrak,astowhatconstitutesconsent.Itdidnotapplythe  \  standardsofthiscircuit.Moreover,DoubleClickandAvenueAdo   notsetuparule,contrarytothedistrictcourt'sreadingof d  them,thataconsenttointerceptioncanbeinferredfromthemere `  purchaseofaservice,regardlessofcircumstances.Ifthesecases   didsohold,theywouldbecontrarytotheruleofthiscircuit h establishedinGriggsRyan.DoubleClickandAvenueA,rather,were d concernedwithsituationsinwhichthedefendantcompanies'clients  purchasedtheirservicesfortheprecisepurposeofcreating l individualuserprofilesinordertotargetthoseusersfor h particularadvertisements.SeeAvenueA,165F.Supp.2dat1156,  1161;DoubleClick,154F.Supp.2dat502,51011.Thisvery p  purposewasannouncedbyDoubleClickandAvenueApublicly,aswell !l" asbeingselfevident.SeeAvenueA,165F.Supp.2dat1161; "$ DoubleClick,154F.Supp.2dat502,51011.Thesedecisionsfound t$& itwouldbeunreasonabletoinferthattheclientshadnot  &p!( consentedmerelybecausetheymightnotunderstandpreciselyhow '#* theuserdemographicswerecollected.SeeAvenueA,165F.Supp. x)$, 2dat116162;DoubleClick,154F.Supp.2dat51011.Thefacts $+t&. inourcasearethemirrorimageofthoseinDoubleClickandAvenue  A:thepharmaceuticalclientsinsistedtherebenocollectionof \ personaldataandthecircumstancespermitnoreasonableinference X thattheydidconsent.    ` Ontheundisputedfacts,theclientpharmaceutical `  companiesdidnotgivetherequisiteconsent.Thepharmaceutical  \  clientssoughtandreceivedassurancesfromPharmatrakthatits   NETcompareservicedidnotandcouldnotcollectpersonally d  identifiableinformation.Further,whenplaintiffsbroughtasuit `  allegingthatPharmatrak'sactionsmeantithadnotliveduptoits   commitment,thepharmaceuticalclientspromptlycancelledthe h service.Farfromconsentingtothecollectionofpersonally d identifiableinformation, thepharmaceuticalclientsexplicitly  conditionedtheirpurchaseofNETcompareonthefactthatitwould l notcollectsuchinformation. h  ` TheinterpretationurgedbyPharmatrakwould,wethink,  leadtoresultsinconsistentwiththestatutoryintent.Itwould p  undercuteffortsbyonepartytoacontracttorequirethatthe !l" privacyinterestsofthosewhoelectronicallycommunicatewithit "$ beprotectedbytheotherpartytothecontract.Italsowould t$& leadtoirrationalresults.SupposePharmatrak,forexample,had  &p!( intentionallydesigneditssoftware,contrarytoits '#* representationsanditsclients'expectations,toredirectall x)$, possiblepersonalinformationtoPharmatrakservers,which $+t&. collectedandminedthedata.Underthedistrictcourt'sapproach,  Pharmatrakwouldneverthelessbeinsulatedagainstliabilityunder \ theECPAonthetheorythatthepharmaceuticalcompanieshad X "consented"bysimplybuyingPharmatrak'sproduct.Orsupposean   internetserviceproviderreceivedaparent'sconsentsolelyto `  monitorachild'sinternetusageforattemptstoaccesssexually  \  explicitsitesbuttheISPinstalledcodethatmonitored,   recordedandcatalogedallinternetusagebyparentandchild d  alike.Underthetheorywehaverejected,theISPwouldnotbe `  liableundertheECPA.    ` Nordidtheusersconsent.Ontheundisputedfacts,it h isclearthattheinternetuserdidnotconsenttoPharmatrak's d accessinghisorhercommunicationwiththepharmaceutical  companies.Thepharmaceuticalcompanies'websitesgaveno l indicationthatusemeantconsenttocollectionofpersonal h informationbyathirdparty.Rather,Pharmatrak'sinvolvementwas  meanttobeinvisibletotheuser,anditwas.Deficientnotice p  willalmostalwaysdefeataclaimofimpliedconsent.SeePoulos, !l" 11F.3dat28182;Campitiv.Walonis,611F.2d387,39394(1st "$ Cir.1979).Pharmatrakmakesafrivolousargumentthatthe t$& internetusersvisitingclientPharmacia'swebpageforrebateson  &p!( DetroltherebyconsentedtoPharmatrak'sinterceptingtheir '#* personalinformation.Onthattheory,everyonlinecommunication x)$, wouldprovideconsenttointerceptionbyathirdparty. $+t&. D.InterceptionRequirement   ` Thepartiesbriefedtothedistrictcourtthequestionof \ whetherPharmatrakhad"intercepted"electroniccommunications.If X thisquestioncouldberesolvedinPharmatrak'sfavor,thatwould   provideagroundforaffirmanceofthesummaryjudgment.See `  O'Neilv.Baker,210F.3d41,46(1stCir.2000).Itcannotbe  \  answeredinfavorofPharmatrak.    ` TheECPAprohibitsonly"interceptions"ofelectronic d  communications."Intercept"isdefinedas"theauralorother `  acquisitionofthecontentsofanywire,electronic,ororal   communicationthroughtheuseofanyelectronic,mechanical,or h otherdevice."Id.2510(4). d  ` BeforeenactmentoftheECPA,somecourtshadnarrowed  theWiretapAct'sdefinitionofinterceptiontoincludeonly l acquisitionsofacommunicationcontemporaneouswithtransmission. h See,e.g.,SteveJacksonGames,Inc.v.U.S.SecretServ.,36F.3d  457,46061(5thCir.1994)(applyingpreECPAinterpretationto p  postECPAcase).Therewasaresultingdebateaboutwhetherthe !l" ECPAshouldbesimilarlyrestricted.Thedebateiswelldescribed "$ inKonop,302F.3dat87679&n.6.Othercircuitshaveinvoked t$& thecontemporaneous,or"realtime,"requirementtoexclude  &p!( acquisitionsapparentlymadeasubstantialamountoftimeafter '#* materialwasputintoelectronicstorage.Steiger,318F.3dat x)$, 104850(pornographicimagesgraduallycollectedonharddrive); $+t&. Konop,302F.3dat87273(staticwebsitecontentavailableonan  ongoingbasis);SteveJacksonGames,36F.3dat458(accumulation \ ofunreademails).Thesecircuitshavedistinguishedbetween X materialsacquiredintransit,whichareinterceptions,andthose   acquiredfromstorage,whichpurportedlyarenot.See,e.g., `  Konop,302F.3dat878.  \   ` WesharetheconcernoftheNinthandEleventhCircuits   aboutthejudicialinterpretationofastatutewrittenpriortothe d  widespreadusageoftheinternetandtheWorldWideWebinacase `  involvingpurportedinterceptionsofonlinecommunications.See   Steiger,318F.3dat1047(quotingKonop,302F.3dat874).In h particular,thestoragetransitdichotomyadoptedbyearliercourts d maybelessthanapttoaddresscurrentproblems.Asonecourt  recentlyobserved,"[T]echnologyhas,tosomeextent,overtaken l language.Travelingtheinternet,electroniccommunicationsare h oftenperhapsconstantlyboth'intransit'and'instorage'  simultaneously,alinguisticbutnotatechnologicalparadox." p  UnitedStatesv.Councilman,245F.Supp.2d319,321(D.Mass. !l" 2003). "$  ` Thefactsheredonotrequireustoenterthedebateover t$& theexistenceofarealtimerequirement.Theacquisitionby  &p!( Pharmatrakwascontemporaneouswiththetransmissionbythe '#* internetuserstothepharmaceuticalcompanies.BothCurtin,the x)$, plaintiffs'expert,andWesSonnenreich,Pharmatrak'sformerCTO, $+t&. observedthatuserscommunicatedsimultaneouslywiththe  pharmaceuticalclient'swebserverandwithPharmatrak'sweb \ server. Aftertheuser'spersonalinformationwastransmitted X usingthegetmethod,boththepharmaceuticalclient'sserverand   Pharmatrak'sservercontributedcontentforthesucceedingwebpage; `  asbothCurtinandWesSonnenreichacknowledged,Pharmatrak's  \  content(theclearGIFthatenabledtheinterception)sometimes   arrivedbeforethecontentdeliveredbythepharmaceuticalclients.  d   ` Eventhosecourtsthatnarrowlyread"interception"would `  findthatPharmatrak'sacquisitionwasaninterception.For   example,Steigerobserves: h  [U]nderthenarrowreadingoftheWiretapActweadopt. d ..,veryfewseizuresofelectroniccommunicationsfrom : computerswillconstitute'interceptions.'...  'Therefore,unlesssometypeofautomaticrouting  softwareisused(forexample,aduplicateofallofan l employee'smessagesareautomaticallysenttothe B employee'sboss),interceptionofEmailwithinthe h prohibitionof[theWiretapAct]isvirtually > impossible.'   o318F.3dat1050(paragraphingomitted)(quotingJ.J.White,Email p  @Work.com:EmployerMonitoringofEmployeeEMail,48Ala.L.Rev. !l" 1079,1083(1997)).NETcomparewaseffectivelyanautomatic "$ routingprogram.Itwascodethatautomaticallyduplicatedpartof t$& thecommunicationbetweenauserandapharmaceuticalclientand  &p!( sentthisinformationtoathirdparty(Pharmatrak). '#*  ` Pharmatrakarguesthattherewasnointerceptionbecause x)$, "therewerealwaystwoseparatecommunications:onebetweentheWeb $+t&. userandthePharmaceuticalClient,andtheotherbetweentheWeb  userandPharmatrak." Thisargumentfailsfortworeasons.First, \ asamatteroflaw,eventhecircuitsadoptinganarrowreadingof $t theWiretapActmerelyrequirethattheacquisitionoccuratthe   sametimeasthetransmission;theydonotrequirethatthe |  acquisitionsomehowconstitutethesamecommunicationasthe ( x  transmission.Second,PharmatrakacquiredthesameURLquery $  string(sometimescontainingpersonalinformation)exchangedas   partofthecommunicationbetweenthepharmaceuticalclientandthe ,|  user.Separate,butsimultaneousandidentical,communications ( satisfyeventhestrictestrealtimerequirement.  E.IntentRequirement 0<  ` Atoralargumentthiscourtquestionedthepartiesabout  whetherthe"intent"requirementunder2511(a)(1)hadbeenmet.   ` Weremandthisissuebecauseitwasnotsquarely 4@ addressedbybothpartiesbeforethedistrictcourt.When ! Pharmatrakmovedforsummaryjudgment,itdidnotdosoonthe # groundsthatthestatutoryrequirementofintentwasunmet.At 8!D % most,itraisedtheissueinpassingatthehearingonthecross "!' motionsforsummaryjudgment. $#)  ` Plaintiffs,intheirmotionforsummaryjudgment,did <&H%+ raisetheissueandarguedthatanyinterceptionwasintentional; '&- butthedistrictcourtneithergrantedthemotionnoraddressedthe )(/ issue. Initsoppositiontoplaintiffs'motion,Pharmatrakrelied @+L*1 onitsownmotionforsummaryjudgment,andsodidnotaddress  intent.Theissuehasnotbeenbriefedtous. \  ` Whileitistruethatwecanaffirmthegrantofsummary X judgmentonanygroundpresentedbytherecord,wewillusuallydo   soonlywhentheissuehasbeenfairlypresentedtothetrial `  court.SeePureDistribs.,Inc.v.Baker,285F.3d150,156(1st  \  Cir.2002).Hereitwasnot,andwearereluctanttodetermine   ourselveswhethertherewasadequateopportunityfordiscoveryon d  thisissueandwhethertherearematerialfactsindispute,andto `  resolveanissuewithoutbriefing.    ` Still,wewishtoavoiduncertaintyaboutthelegal h standardforintentundertheECPAonremand,andsoweaddress d thatpoint.Congressamended18U.S.C.2511in1986tochange  thestateofmindrequirementfrom"willful"to"intentional". l Since"intentional"itselfmayhavedifferentglossesputonit,- #  17       h werefertothelegislativehistory,whichstates:  0 ` AsusedintheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,the p  term"intentional"isnarrowerthanthedictionary F ! definitionof"intentional.""Intentional"meansmore !l" thanthatonevoluntarilyengagedinconductorcauseda !B# result.Suchconductorthecausingoftheresultmust "$ havebeentheperson'sconsciousobjective.An #% "intentional"stateofmindmeansthatone'sstateof t$& mindisintentionalastoone'sconductortheresultof J% ' one'sconductifsuchconductorresultisone's  &p!( consciousobjective.Theintentionalstateofmindis &F") applicableonlytoconductandresults.Sinceonehasno '#* controlovertheexistenceofcircumstances,onecannot  "intend"them.` (#` (#  S.Rep.No.99541,at23(1986),reprintedin1986U.S.C.C.A.N. 2 3555,3577.Congressmadeclearthatthepurposeoftheamendment . wastounderscorethatinadvertentinterceptionsarenotabasis   forcriminalorcivilliabilityundertheECPA.Id.Anactisnot 6   intentionalifitistheproductofinadvertenceormistake.  2  Sandersv.RobertBoschCorp.,38F.3d736,74243(4thCir.1994);   UnitedStatesv.Townsend,987F.2d927,930(2dCir.1993).There :  isalsoauthoritysuggestingthatliabilityforintentionally 6 engaginginprohibitedconductdoesnotturnonanassessmentof  themeritofaparty'smotive.SeeAbrahamv.Countyof > Greenville,237F.3d386,39192(4thCir.2001)(juryinstruction : saying"defendant'smotiveisnotrelevant"todeterminationof  intentunder2511wasproper).Thatisnottosaymotiveis B entirelyirrelevantinassessingintent.Aninterceptionmaybe > morelikelytobeintentionalwhenitservesaparty'sself  interesttoengageinsuchconduct. F ! F.Conclusion !B#  ` We reverse and remand forfurtherproceedingsconsistent #% withthisopinion.