Marsh v. Curran

A plaintiff has sufficiently alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from surreptitious recordings of his private conversations, which he claims were made by his ex-wife and her family and lawyers for use in their divorce proceedings. He has also sufficiently alleged computer crimes and aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping, assuming without deciding that such claim exists in Virginia.

Contrary to the defendant-attorneys’ argument, their alleged use of information obtained via the recordings is not privileged. Further, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege means that the attorneys will not be prevented from defending themselves. The attorneys were allegedly at least once on inquiry notice that information their client shared was obtained via unauthorized wiretap. The court will not strike the portions of the complaint alleging violations of Virginia’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

Motions to dismiss denied in part and granted in part.

Marsh v. Curran, No. 1:18cv787, Jan. 25, 2019. EDVA at Alexandria (O’Grady).

Categories: Opinions, U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Virginia

Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: