Supreme Court of the United States
Maracich v. Spears
June 17, 2013570 U.S. 48
Summary
The Supreme Court held that an attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act’s (b)(4) litigation exception, vacating the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanding for application of the proper “predominant purpose” test. The Court also declined to apply the rule of lenity and emphasized that solicitation must be excluded from the exception’s scope.
Holding
- Whether an attorney’s solicitation of prospective clients falls within the DPPA’s subsection (b)(4) litigation exception.. No, attorney solicitation is not a permissible purpose covered by the (b)(4) exception.
- What standard should be applied to determine whether the predominant purpose of a communication is solicitation.. Courts must assess whether the predominant purpose of obtaining, using, or disclosing DPPA‑protected information was to solicit, using an objective inquiry into the content of the communication and the overall conduct.
- Whether the rule of lenity applies to ambiguous language in subsection (b)(4).. The rule of lenity does not apply because the DPPA’s text and structure resolve any ambiguity in the phrases “in connection with” and “investigation in anticipation of litigation.”
Docket 12-25
Cited authorities
- Rule 26(b)(3)
- Rule 26(b)(3)
- 18 U.S.C. §2721
- 18 U.S.C. §§2721
- S.C. Code Ann. §56
- 18 U.S.C. §2721
- 18 U.S.C. §2721
- 113 Stat. 1025
Cited by
- United States v. Usplabs, LLC (01), Jacobo Geissler (02), Jonathan Doyle (03), Matthew Hebert (04), Kenneth Miles…
- United States v. Bittner
- Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Products, Inc.
- United States, Appellant v. Daniel E. Musso, Sr., Defendant, Appellee.
- Southard v. Bennett
- Fagaautau v. Bennett
- United States v. Stratics Networks Inc.
- Sablowsky v. Auto-Chlor System, LLC