.3accessible to the general public. The panel also held that datatransmitted over a Wi-Fi network is not readily accessible tothe general public under the ordinary meaning of the phraseas it is used in § 2511(2)(g)(i). Accordingly, the district courtdid not err in denying the motion to dismiss on the basis of the Wiretap Act exemption for electronic communication thatis readily accessible to the general public.
Michael H. Rubin (argued), David H. Kramer, Brian M.Willen, and Caroline E. Wilson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati Professional Corporation, Palo Alto, California, for Defendant-Appellant.Elizabeth J. Cabraser (argued) and Jahan C. Sagafi, Lieff,Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco,California; Kathryn E. Barnett, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &Bernstein, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Jeffrey L. Kodroff,John A. Macoretta, and Mary Ann Giorno, Spector RosemanKodroff & Willis, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; DanielA. Small and David A. Young, Cohen Milstein Sellers &Toll, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees.Marc Rotenberg, Alan Butler, and David Jacobs, ElectronicPrivacy Information Center, Washington, D.C., for AmicusCuriae Electronic Privacy Information Center.