75129646 new robbins suit 2new

8/3/2019 75129646 New Robbins Suit 2NEW

1/31


2/31

camera ("webcam") by Lower Merion School District. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused toherself by Defendants' invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, theft of Plaintiff's private infonnation andunlawful interception and access to acquired and exported data and other stored electroniccommunications in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, The Computer FraudAbuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, The Fourth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act andPennsylvania common law.

2. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and without her authorization, Defendants spied on theactivities of Plaintiff by Defendants' indiscriminant use of and ability to remotely activate the webcamsincorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District. This continuing surveillance ofPlaintiff's home use of the laptop issued by the School District, including the indiscriminant remoteactivation of the webcams incorporated into each laptop, was accomplished without the knowledge orconsent of the Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to 2511 and 2520 of the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. 2511 and 2520, 1030 of the Computer Fraudand Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. 1030, 2701, 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983,The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amend IV, the PennsylvaniaWiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5701 et seq. ("PWESA"), andPennsylvania common law.

4. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal law claims pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1331 and 1137.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) as eachDefendant is a resident of and/or maintains a pennanent business office in this district.

6. In connection with the acts and conduct complained of, Defendants, directly or indirectly,used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the internet.

Case 2:11-cv-07495-JP Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 27


3/31

THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff, Paige Robbins, attended high school at Harriton High School at 600 North Ithan

Avenue, Rosemont, Pennsylvania, 19010. Harriton High School is part of the Lower Merion SchoolDistrict.

8. Plaintiff, Paige Robbins is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 437Hidden River Road, Penn Valley, Pennsylvania, 19072-1112. Paige Robbins is hereinafter referred to as"Plaintiff. "

9. Defendant, Lower Merion School District ("School District"), is a municipal corporationbody politic within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 301 EastMontgomery Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, 19003.

10. Defendant, Board of Directors of the Lower Merion School District ("Board"), iscomprised of a nine (9) member board elected locally to act ass a corporate body in fulfilling the SchoolDistrict's and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania'S obligation to provide public education. The Boardcan be contacted through its secretary, Fran Keaveney, with an address of 301 East MontgomeryAvenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, 19003.

11. Defendant, Superintendent of Schools Christopher W. McGinley ("McGinley"), is aSchool District Administrator appointed by the Board to supervise the day to day operation of theSchool District. As such, he is responsible for the implementation of policies, procedures and practicesinstituted by the Board. The School District, the Board and McGinley are hereinafter collectivelyreferred to as "Defendants".

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS12. During the pertinent timeframe, in the Superintendent of Schools welcome address

appearing on the Lower Merion School District website, the Superintendent stated as follows:



4/31

The District is also in the final stages of implementinga one to one laptop initiative at the High Schools. Thanks inpart to State and Federal grants secured by our technologystaff during the past few years, every high school student willhave their own personal laptop-enabling an authentic 21 stCentury learning environment. The initiative, which waslaunched with great success in Harriton last year, enhancesopportunities for ongoing collaboration, and resources and theability to seamlessly work projects and research at school andat home. The results: more engaged, active learning andenhanced student achievement. While other districts areexploring ways to make these kinds of incentives possible,our programs are already in place, it is no accident that wearrived ahead of the curve; in Lower Merion, ourresponsibility is to lead.

13. As part of this initiative as indicated by the Superintendent, laptop computers equippedwith webcams had been issued on a one to one basis to all high school students in the School District.

14. An examination of all of the written documentation accompanying the laptop, as well asany documentation appearing on any website or handed out to students or parents concerning the use ofthe laptop, reveals that no reference is made to the fact that the school district had the ability to remotelyactivate the embedded webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images from thatwebcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera at the time of the activation.

15. Based upon information and belief, Defendant remotely accessed the webcam feature onthe laptop issued to the Plaintiff while she was in the bathroom, or in the nude, or partially dressed orsleeping or in her bedroom in a compromised state. In or about April 2010, Plaintiff discovered from adeposition given by Lindy (Lynn) Matsko, the Assistant Vice Principal, that Defendants possessedimages of Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, while she was in the bathroom, or in the nude, orpartially dressed or sleeping or in her bedroom or in a compromised state.

16. Ms. Matsko confirmed that the School District, in fact, had the ability to remotelyactivate the webcam contained in a students' personal laptop computer issued by the School District at



5/31

any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam all withoutknowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer.

17. Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam could be remotely activated at anytime by the School District, the webcam would capture anything happening in the room in which thelaptop computer is located, regardless ofwhether the student is sitting at the computer and using it.

18. Defendants had never disclosed to the Plaintiffthat the School District had the ability to capture webcam Images from anylocation in which the personal laptop computer was kept.

19. Based upon deposition testimony provided on April 7, 2010, as a result ofa prioraction, Defendants possess webcam images ofPlaintiff, as stated below.

Q: Was she -- Paige Robbin (sic) naked in the pictures that you looked;Do you remember? Her top was off, right? In the picture that youlooked at?A: There was a picture ofprobably Paige Robbins'. I can't imagine any ITperson umm, I mean, it .. .(See Exhibit "A", relevant portions of the Deposition testimony from Lynn Matsko, dated April

7, 2010, a true and correct copy is attached hereto, and incorporated herein).COUNT 1 - INTERECEPTION OF ELECTRONIC

COMMUNICATION UNDER THE ECPA 20. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.21. Plaintiff asserts this count against all Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to

2511 and 2520 of the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. 2511 and 2520.22. Section 2511 of the ECPA provides in part:

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapterany person who(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept,or procures any other person to intercept, or endeavor tointercept, any .. . electronic communications;

******



6/31

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, thecontents of any .. . electronic communication knowing or having reasonto know that the information was obtained through the interception of a[n] .. .electronic communication in violation of this subsection; ... shall be punished asprovided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

23. Section 2520 of the ECP A provides in pertinent part:(a) In general, -Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose .. . electronic communication is intercepted ... or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (b) Relief. -In the action under this section, appropriate relief includes

(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory in appropriate cases; and (2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

24. Section 2510 of the ECP A, setting forth the definitions of the terms in 2511 defines"person" to include "any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivisionthereof ... " 18 U.S.c. 2510(6). Accordingly, each Defendant is a "person" within the meaning of 2511.

25. Section 2510 defines "electronic communication to include "any transfer of signs, signals,writing, imaging, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio,electromagnetic, photo electronic, or photo optical system that effects interstate or foreigncommerce, ... " 18 U.S.c. 2510 (12). Accordingly, the webcam images complained of constitute an"electronic communication" within the meaning of 2511.



7/31

26. Section 2510 defines "intercept" to mean "the aural or other acquisition of the contents ofany wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or otherdevice." 18 U.S.C. 2510(4). Section 2510 defmes "electronic, mechanical, or other device" to mean"any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication,"subject to exclusions not relevant to this action. 18 U.S.C. 2510(5).

27. The softwarelhardware used by the School District to remotely activate the webcamscomplained of constitute an "electronic .. . device" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2510(5). By usingsaid softwarelhardware to secretly obtain webcam images, each Defendant "intercepts" thatcommunication within the meaning of 2511.

28. By virtue of foregoing, Plaintiff is a "person whose .. . electronic communication isintercepted... or intentionally used in violation of this chapter" within the meaning of 2520.

29. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for their violations of 2511 and 2520 of the ECPA.

30. Since Plaintiff first learned of Defendants' unlawful remote activation of the webcamscomplained of in the deposition given by Lynn Matsko, in the month of April 2010, this action is timelyand not beyond ECPA's applicable statute oflimitations.

31. Defendant 's actions complained of herein were conSCIOUS, intentional, wanton andmalicious, entitling Plaintiff to an award ofpunitive damages.

32. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants continued violation of the ECPA.COUNT 11- THEFT OF

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNDER THE CFAA

33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forthherein.

34. Plaintiff assert this Count against Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to 1030 ofthe CFAA, 18 U.S.C. 1030.



8/31

35. Section 1030 provides in part:(a) Whoever-

***** (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds

authorized access, and thereby obtains-(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate orforeign communication;

***** shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. (b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection(a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

*****(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this sectionmay maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages andinjunctive relief or other equitable relief .... No action may be brought under thissubsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained ofor the date of the discovery of the damage.

36. Section 1030 of the CF AA defines the term "protected computer" to include "acomputer ... Which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication." 18 U.S.C.1030(e)(2)(B). Each laptop issues by the School District and equipped with a webcam is used ininterstate communications and is therefore a "protected computer" within the meaning of 1030.

37. Section 1030 of the CFAA defines the term "exceeds authorized access" to mean "toaccess a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in thecomputer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(6). By usingsoftwarelhardware to remotely activate the webcams complained of and intercept their images, eachDefendant has gained "access a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access" within themeaning of 1030.

38. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for their violations of 1030of the CFAA.



9/31

39. Since Plaintiff first learned ofDefendants remote activation of the webcams complainedof as to Plaintiff in or about April 2010, this action is timely as to Plaintiff.

40. Pursuant to the court Order of October 18 2010, Defendants have in their possession thewebcam images or screenshots, or any information contained therein, at issue herein. (See Exhibit "B",October 14,2010 Order, a true and correct copy is incorporated herein).

41. Defendants actions complained of herein were conSCIOUS, intentional, wanton andmalicious entitling Plaintiff to an award ofpunitive damages.

42. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and seeks any and all permissible compensationfor Defendants violation of the CF AA, as well as the production and relinquishment of any and all

webcam images or screenshots, or any information contained therein.COUNT III - STORED

COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. 270l)43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth

herein44. Section 2701 of the SCA provides, in pertinent part:Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, whoever

1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electroniccommunication service is provided; or2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;and thereby obtains, alters or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communicationwhile it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) ofthis section.

45. Section 2711 of the SCA defines "electronic communication" as "anytransfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in wholeor in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or optical system that affects interstate orforeign commerce .. ." 18 U.S.C. 2711, 2510(12). Accordingly, the webcam images complained ofare "electronic communications" within the meaning of the SCA.



10/31

46. Section 2711 of the SCA defines "person" to include "any employee, or agent of theUnited States or of a State of political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership,association .. .." 18 U.S.C. 2711, 2510(6). Accordingly, all Defendants are "persons" within themeaning of the SCA.

47. Section 2711 of the SCA defines "electronic storage" to include "any temporaryintennediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmissionthereof ..." 18 U.S.C. 2711, 2510(l7)(A).

48. Defendants' use of the softwarelhardware to remotely activate the webcams complainedof and to obtain their images constitutes an unauthorized acquisition of stored electroniccommunications in violation of the SCA.

49. Section 2701(b) of the SCA provides punishment in those instances where theunauthorized acquisition of stored electronic communications was not done for commercial gain oradvantage of"a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both...." 18 U.S.C. 2701(b)(B).

COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (42 U.S.C. 1983)

50. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully setforth herein.51. Section 1983 states in pertinent part:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, orusage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes tobe subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within thejurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunitiessecured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in anaction at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...."



11/31

52. All Defendants are "persons: within the meaning of 1983, in that at all times materialhereto they were acting under the color of state law as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, or a representative thereof.

53. Defendants' clandestine remote activation of the webcams complained ofdeprivedPlaintiffofher right to privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

54. As Plaintiff first learned ofDefendants unlawful deprivation of their privacy rights duringthe deposition testimony during April 2010, this action has been commenced within 1983's applicabletwo-year statute of limitations.

55. Defendants ' conduct in remotely activating the webcams complained of, which resultedin the deprivation ofPlaintifi's constitutionally-protected right to privacy was intentional, extreme andoutrageous, and thereby entitles Plaintiff to an award ofpunitive damages.

COUNT V - INVASIONOF PRIVACY (U.S. CONST. AMEND. Iy)


57. At a minimum, and pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,U.S. CONST. amend. IV, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation ofprivacy with respect to the use of thewebcams embedded in the laptop computers issued by the School District

58. In particular, Plaintiff was never informed that the webcam incorporated into thestudents' personal laptop computer could be remotely activated by the School Distr ict and/or its agents,servants, workers or employees indiscriminately at the whim of the School District, and that suchactivation would naturally capture images of anything in front of the webcam at the time of its activation.

59. In as much as the personal laptop computers were used by students of the high schoolsand their families, it is believed and therefore averred, that the School District has the ability to and has



12/31

captured images of Plaintiff without her permission and authorization, all of which is embarrassing andhumiliating.

60. As the laptops at issue were routinely used by the students while at home, it is believedand therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured and/or intercepted consist of Plaintiff,a then minor, in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stagesof dress or undress.

COUNT VI-PENNSYLVANIA WIRTAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ACT (18 PA. C.S.A. 5101, ETSEQ.)


62. Section 5703 of the PWESA states in pertinent part:Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree ifhe:

1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person tointercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or auralcommunication;63. Section 5702 of the PWESA defines "intercept" to include the "aural or other acquisition

of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic,mechanical or other device." 18 Pa C.S.A. 5702.

64. Section 5702 of the PWESA defines "electronic communications" to include "anytransfer of signs, signals, writing, images, .. . transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio,electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system .. ." 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5702.

65. Pursuant to 5702 ofPWESA defines "person" as "any employee, or agents of theUnited States or any state or political subdivision thereof .. ." 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5702.



13/31

66. Pursuant to 5702 to PWESA, Defendants are "persons" within the meaning of the Act,and Defendants' conduct with respect to the webcams complained ofconstitutes an interception ofelectronic communications violative of the PWESA.

67. Pursuant to 5725 of the PWESA:Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover

from any such person: 1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed atthe rate of 100.00 a day for each day of violation, or 1,000.00, which ishigher.2) Punitive damages.3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

C01JNT VII - INVASION OF PRIVACY: PENNSYLVANIA LAW 68. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if

fully set forth herein.69. At all times material hereto, and pursuant to the common law of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff

had a reasonable expectation ofprivacy with respect to the operation of the webcams complained of.70. Plaintiff was never informed of the School District's capability and practice of remotely

activating the webcams complained of.71. As the laptops at issue were routinely used by the students while at home, it is believed

and therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured andlor intercepted consist of Plaintiff,a then minor, in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stagesof dress or undress.

http:///reader/full/1,000.00http:///reader/full/1,000.00


14/31

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Paige Robbins, requests judgment in her favor and against Defendants,Lower Merion School District, The Board of Directors of the Lower Merion School District andChristopher W. McGinley, jointly and severally, as follows:

1) for compensatory damages;2) for punitive damages;3) for liquidated damages pursuant to the PWESA;4) for attorneys' fees and costs;5) for declaratory and injunctive relief; and6) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues for which a right to jury trial exists.

Respectfully submitted,BOGAN LAW GROUP, LLC



15/31

EXHIBIT "A"

1'7



16/31

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLAKE J. ROBBINS, a CIVIL ACTIONMinor by h is Pa re n t sand Natural Guardians,MICHAEL E. ROBBINS andHOLLY S. ROBBINS,I n d i v i d u a l l y and onBeha l f o f a l l S i m i l a r l yS i t u a t e d Per sons

vsLOWER MERION SCHOOLDISTRICT, THE BOARD OFDIRECTORS OF THE LOWERMERION SCHOOL DISTRICT,and CHRISTOPHER W.McGINLEY,Supe r in t e nde n t of LowerMer ion School D i s t r i c t NO. 00665-JD

Video tape de pos i t i on o f LYNN C. MATSKO,t aken on be ha l f o f the P l a i n t i f f s , in th e LawOff ices of LAMM RUBENSTONE, LLC, 3600 HorizonBoulevard , SUl te 200, Trevose , PennBylvania , onWednesday Apr i l 7, 2010, commenclng a t o r abou t10:15 a .m , be fo re Col leen A. Young, R.P .R. ,C.S.R. Notary Pub l i c .

B & R SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONALS, INC. 23 5 SOUTH 13TH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA' 19107

(215) 546-7400

B & R Services fo r Profess ionals , Inc.

lQ



17/31

LYNN C. MATSKO 16 3

1 BY MR. HALTZMAN: 2 Q. I j u s t showed you 6112, c o r r e c t ? 3 A. Uh huh. 4 Q. L e t ' s look a t th e r e s t of t h a t e m a i l which i s 5 on 6 1 1 3 . It s t a r t s o f f with an e m a i l from Lynn 6 Matsko s ay i ng I spoke with Pa ige y e s t e r d a y . 7 A. Uh huh. 8 Q. The nex t e ~ m a i l s t r i n g above t h a t s a y s , i s she 9 a d m i t t i n g she has it. can someone come down to JF

10 to v e r i f y it i s h e r on th e l a p t o p , I have a p i c t u r e11 o f h e r .12 A. Uh huh. 13 Q. So you knew when yo u read t h i s e-mai l t h a t 14 t h a t were t ak ing p i c t u r e s of h e r , c o r r e c t ?15 A. She - - he j u s t says I have a p i c t u r e of her .16 Q. Wel l . what d id you t h ink t hey were t a l k i n g '17 abou t if it w a s n ' t t h a t t hey were t a k i n g p i c t u r e s18 from th e Web-cam. what kind of p i c t ~ r e were they19 t a l k i n g abou t?20 A. They they th e she opened up th e21 the l a p t o p computer and it's a p i c t u r e of h e r .22 Q. So you unders tood t h a t if somebody d o e s n ' t23 r e t u r n a t th e end o f the y e a r they a re going to24 t r a c k it and t ake p i c t u r e s of peop le . c o r r e c t ?

B & R Services for Profess ionals , Inc .

10



18/31

LYNN C. MATSKO 16 4

1 A. I - I d o n ' t unde r s t and t h a t I unde r s t and in2 t h i s cas e t h i s i s wtat they d i d .3 Q. Well , why?4 A. S pe c i f i c to t h i s c a se .5 Q. Well , why were they doing -6 A. You a re asking me ge ne r a l l y do I unde r s t and7 t h a t . No, I d o n ' t ge ne r a l l y unde r s t and t h a t .8 Q. Why d id they do it fo r Pa ige Robbins , it9 was it because she wa s a bad k id and we a re go ing

10 to spy on he r ?11 A. Pa ige Robbins wa s not a bad k i d .12 Q. So why were t he y t a k ing a p i c t u r e of he r j u s t13 because she d i d n ' t re tu rn th e t h ing a t th e end of14 y e a r as and because you 've a l r eady sa i d , I 'm15 ca l l i n g her?16 A. They a re t ry ing to ge t p ic they a re t r y i ng17 to get the l ap top back.18 Q. So it's a l l r i g h t , you unders t90d t h a t as p a r t19 of t he p r ocedur e t he r e t hey a re ~ o i n g to s t a r t20 t r a c k i ng computers and s t a r t tak ;ng p i c t u r e s of the21 k i ds ?22 A. r d id no t unde r s t and t h a t .23 Q. You - - so you d i d n ' t unders tand t h a t when you24 read t h i s e -ma i l , c o r r e c t ?

B & R Services for Profess ionals , Inc.

' ) ( )



19/31

16 5

1 A. When I read the e -mai l it sa ys , I have a 2 p i c t u r e o f he r . he i s asking me to come down and 3 take a look a t it. 4 Q. An d you a re saying it's her? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q Did you say to him, yeah , how d id you g et a 7 p i c t u r e o f he r? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Why not-? You a re j u s t looking a t a p i c t u r e o f

10 somebody t h a t was c l e a r l y from Web cam. wh y d i d n ' t11 you ask him, where d id you g e t t h i s p i c t u r e from12 and why are you t a k ing the p i c t u r e ?13 A. Th e purpose of h is que s t ion i s to v er i f y does14 th e s t ude n t still have he r l a p top compute r .15 Q. So yo u d o n ' t be l i e ve you have any16 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to ask the que s t ion about , wai t17 second , why were you t a k ing p i c t u r e s o f B la of18 Paige Robbins?19 A. I work fo r Lower Merion School D i s t r i c t , I20 have Steve Kl ine and whether it was George F r a z i e r21 o r Ginny DiMedio or Ja son H i l t z , bu t t h i s was a l l22 c l e a r e d by them.23 Q. So if it was c lea red by them it's good enough24 fo r t hem; f a i r s t a t e me n t .

B & R Services for Profess ionals , Inc .

') 1



20/31

LYNN C. MATSKO 16 6

A. I f it's c l e a r e d by them, I work fo r them.2 Q. Was sh e - - Pa ige Robbin (s ic ) naked in th e3 p i c t u r e t h a t you looked a t ; do you remember? Her4 to p was o f f . r i gh t ? In the p i c t u r e t h a t you looked5 a t?6 A. There was a p i c t u r e pr obab l y o f Pa ige Robb ins '7 f a c e . I c a n ' t imagine any IT pe r s on , I mean, it . .8 Q. How do know they what t hey a re go ing t o g e t a9 p i c t u r e of?

10 A. It's r e a l l y d i f f i c u l t fo r me to answ er t h a t .11 I mean, t h a t ' s12 Q. Rea l l y?13 A. a q u e s t i o n you are as k i ng to me14 Q. It's d i f f i c u l t ? They open up the computer and15 it t a ke s a p i c t u r e of a Web-cam. You a re16 s o p h i s t i c a t e d enough abou t a p i c t u r e to know it '17 w i l l t ake a p i c t u r e of any t h i ng in f r on t o f it,18 c o r r e c t ? Corre c t? Do you unde r s t and t h a t abou t a19 computer?20 A. When you open up a a a a computer 21 Q. Righ t .22 A. it t a ke s , u s ua l l y th e p i c t u r e t h a i I have23 s een o f - o f s t ude n t s it's hard , somet imes it's24 d i f f i c u l t to se e them because t he s tude n t i s so

B & R Services for Profess ionals , Inc.



21/31

EXHIBIT "B"



22/31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN I)ISTRICT OF P E ~ N S Y L V A : N I A BLAKE J. ROBBINS. et at.. Civil Action

Plaintiffs. No. 10-665v. Hon. Jan E. DuBois

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT. ct aI.,Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFAND NOW, this 12th day of October 20 I 0, upon consideration of Defendants'

Cross-Motion for Entry of Permanent Equitable Relief. the Court having ordered counsel for theparties to meet and confer in an effort to reach agreement on the form or an order for pemlanentequitable and injunctive relief. hy agreement of the Parties. and good calise appearing.

IT IS ORI)ERED thal:I. The injunctive relief granted in the Court's prior orders in this action is

superseded by the relief granted in this Order.2. The Lower Merion School District (the "District") and its officers,

employees, and agents (including its attomeys and computer commltants) (collectively."LMSD") arc permanently enjoined from remotely activating, or causing to be remotelyaCfivated, webcams on laptop computers issued by LMSD to its students ("student laptops").

3. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. LMSD is permanentlyenjoined from purcha....ing any software, hardware, or other technology that allows for the remoteactivation of webcams on student laptops or the remote monitoring or recording of audio orvideo from student laptops. To the extent that any slandard operating system software or othercommercially available software that LMSD may wish to use for educational purposes includes



23/31

functionality that could possibly allow for the remole activationof webcams on student laptopsor the remote monitoring or recording of audio or video from student laptops, LMSD maypurchase and usc the software only for purposes consistent with the policies and regulationscontemplated by paragraph 7of this Order, and LMSD shall disable any such functionality to theextent feasible.

4. LMSD is permanently enjoined from remotely capturing.or causing to beremotely captured. screenshols of student laptops. The preceding sentence shall not precludeLMSD from remotely accessing student laptops for purposesof maintenance. repairs, ortroubleshooting in accordance with the policies and regulations contemplated by paragraph 7ofthis Order.

5. LMSD may implement a technological alternative to track student laptopsthat arc reported by the student or his or her parent or guardian as lost or stolen provided that theloss or theft is documented in writing and that such tracking te(:hnology: (i ) is used only to trackthe location of a laptop reported losl or stolen; (ii) operates in a manner that will not compromisethe privacy rights of District students, their families, or anyone else within the viewing capabilityof the student laptop 's wcbcam; (iii) is conspicuously disclosed and its functionality and uses arcexplained in a document requiring the signatureof students and parents/guardians before .mylaptop with such tracking technology is issued to any student: and (iv) may only be activatedunder policies and regulations for such activation as contemplated by paragraph 7of this Order.By way of example, if it complies with the foregoing requirements, the District may install onlaptops global positioning system devices or other anti-theft Iracking devices or features that donot permillhc remote activation of webcams. the remote capturing of scrccnshots. or any remotemonitoring or recording of audio. video. or on-screen text.

2



24/31

6. LMSD is permanently enjoined from accessing or reviewing any studcmcreated files contained on student laptops (including but not limited to documents. e-mails,instant messaging records. photographs. Internet usage logs, and Web browsing histories) for anyreason except as permitted by the policies and regulations contemplated by paragraph 7 of thisOrder or othetwise pursuant to a signed consent form signed by the student and his or her parentor guardian that clearly and conspicuously sets forth the ability of LMSD to access or reviewsuch filcs. In the cvent that the District does not issue a laptop to a student on the basis of thestudent's declining to sign such a consent form, the District shall use its best cffons to makenecessary accommodations (0 cnsure thar such student's education is not adversely affected.

7. To the extent, i f any, that such policies and regulations arc nol already inplace. the District shall prcpare and adopt official policies in accordance with its By-Laws. andthe District shall promulgate official regulations, governing: the distribution. maintenance, andpermissible uses of student laptops: the privacy of student data tl1 such laptops; the tmining ofDistrict information services personnel with respect to student laptops and privacy; and theadminis{ration, oversight. and enrorcement of such policies and regulations including. amongother things, which persons at the District arc responsible for administering. overseeing, andenforcing the policies and regulations and the specific regulations and/or policics that thosepersons arc responsible for administering. overseeing. und enforcing. Such policies and/orregulations shall require, among other things: 0) that the District explain to. and obtain thewritten consent of students and parent.s or guardians with respect to, the manner and

circumstances in which District personnel may remotely a c ( ~ e s s student laptops or otherwiseaccess or review any information or data (including but not limited to documents. e-maBs. instantmessaging records, photographs. Internet usage logs. and Web browsing histoties) contained on

3



25/31

student laptops; Oi) a procedure to make necessary accommodations for a student to whom theDistrict does not issue a laptop on the basis that the student declined to sign slich a consent fonnto ensure that such student's education is not adversely affected: (iii) that immediately prior toremotely accessing any student laptop for reasons permitted by and disclosed in such policieswhile Ihe laptop is in usc, the District shall notify the sludcnr of such impending access directly(in person or by telephone) and/or via a pop-up nOlification on the laptop's screen, and that theDistrict may not remotely access a student laptop without the student's permission; and (iv) theDistrict to maintain a permanent log of e;.\ch and every instance in which it remotely accesses anystudent laptop that details the date and time of remote access and the reason for such access.

8. LMSD shall preserve all electronic files, data, and storage media thatpertain to Plaintiffs' claims and claims that other students or their family members may havewith respect to the District's use of LANrcv software, including but notiirnitcd to any and allimages obtained by the District via the remote activation of webcams on student laptops for atleast six years after the date of this Order or until further order of the Court.

9. To the extent that the process required by the May l4 , 2010 order enteredby Judge Jan E. DuBois. and the May 14, 2010 order entered by Chief Magistrate Judge ThomasJ. Rueter, with respect to the viewing of images by affected students and/or theirparents/guardians is not completed as of the date of this Order, then that process shall becompleted. That process, developed under the auspices of, and supervised and approved by.Judge Jan E. DuBois and Chief Magistntlc Judge Thomas J. Rueter, requires LMSD - to theextent it is in possession of webcam photographs or screensho[s from certain student laptopsresulting from the District's usc of the tracking feature of the LANrev software - to provide anystudents who possessed those laptops while tracking was activated and/or their parents or

4



26/31

guardians an opportunity to view such images consistent with the terms set forth in the May 14.201 () orders.

10. LMSD is pemlanently enjoined from viewing. disseminating, or otherwisepermiuing access to any webcam photographs or screenshms, or any inform


27/31

VERIF ICATION

I verify that I am the Plaintiff in the attached pleading, and that the statements made inthe foregoing Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements hereinare subject to the penalties of 18 PA e.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification toauthorities.

Dated: ,2011ec. (,



28/31

------- ------- -------

v

: : ' : ; : : ~ _ ~ .. ;ru" I D ~ " r e ; " M ~ ! : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~ : , 3 i ~ ~ _ . , ..,~ ~ ~ p ~ " "y local rules of court This form, a p p r ~ L d i C i a i Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the purpose of Initiatinthe civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON TIlE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

Paige Robbins(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plai

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PL

(e) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Nwnber)Bogan Law Group, LLC 1800 JFK Blvd. Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA

DEFENDANTS

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATIONLAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

III . CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL P ARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plainti(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for De5'da I u.s. Government Federal Question

II. BASIS OF J l IR ISm (Place an "X" in One Box Only) CJ DEF PTF EFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This Statei:!'l I a I Incorpomtedor Principal Place a aof Business In This StareCitizen of Another State a 2 a 2 Incorporatedand Principal Place a 5 a 5Defendanta 2 u.s. Govennnent a 4 Diversity of Business In Another State(Indicate Citizensbip of Parties in Item III) a 3 a Foreign Nation a6 a6IV NATURE OF SUIT (Placean"X"ioOneBoxOnlv) . OTH ER STATUTESa 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY a 610 Agricultute a 422 Appcal28 USC 158 a 400 State Reapportionmento 120 Marine a 310 Airplane a 362 Personal Inj ury a 620 Other Food & Drug a 423 Withdmwal a 410 Antitrusta 130 Miller Act a 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice a 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 a 430 Banks and Bankinga 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability a 365 Personallnjwy ofproperty 21 USC 881 a 450 Commerce

C:' iPROPER'FY;.RI( aTS' ISO Recovery of Overpayment a 320 Assault, Lihel & Product Liability a 630 Liquor Laws a 460 Deportationa 820 CopyrightsEnfoncementofJudgmen Slander a 368 Asbestos Personal a 640 R.R. & Truck a 470 Racketeer Influeneed anda lSI Medicare Act a 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product a 650 Airline Regs. a 830 Parent Corrupt Organizationsa 1S2 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability a 660 Occupational a 840 Ttedemark a 480 Consumer CreditStedcnt Loans a 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY SafetylHealth a 490 CableJSat TVa 810 Selective Service(Exe\. Vererans) a 345 Marine Product a 370 Other Fraud r a 7 6 . ; ; . 9 0 : . . O t h ~ " i e r ~ = = ' : " 7 : ' " " " ~ r " " = , = = ; ; ; ; - ; ; = = ; " " " , , . , , . , . , a 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability a 371 Tmthio Lending ..... ;. ";:.-'.Ll\IruK;c< ;;i;/':.; ".';'.;.SOOIAl:;:SEURI.:}:y .; .. a 850 Secmities/CmnmoditieslofVeteraD's Benefits a 350 Motor Vebicle a 380 Other Personal a 710 Fair Lahor Standards a 861 HIA (\395ff) Exchangea 160 Stockholders' Suits a 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act a 862 Black Lung (923) a 875 Customer CbaIIengea 190 Other Contract Product Liabitity a 385 Property Damage a 720 LaborlMgmt. Relations a 863 DIWClDlWW (405(g 12 USC 3410a 195 Contract Product Liability a 360 Other Personal Product Liability a 730 LaborlMgml.Reporting a 864 SSID Title XVI a 890 Other Statutory Actionsa 196 Franchise Iniury & Disclosure Act a 865 RS I (405(g}) a 891 Agricultural ActsREAL PROPERTY ;. ' . ' , ~ : : : C I M L , . R J G H T S E ; ' ; , :'P.RJSONEKPETITJONS ;, a 740 Railway Labor A c t F E D E R ~ : r ; ; l l ' A X ; S U I T S ' ::. a 892 Economic Stabili:altion Aa 210 Land Condemnation a 441 Voting a 510 Motions to Vacate a 790 Other Labor Litigation a 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff a 893 Environmental Mattersa 220 Foreclosure a 442 Employment Sentence a 791 Emp\. ReI. Inc. or Derendant) a 894 Energy Allocation Acta 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment a 443 Housing! Hub"". Corpus: Security Act a 871 \ R S ~ Third Party a 895 Freedom oflnformationa 240 Torts to Land Accommodations a 530 General 26 USC 7609 Acta 245 Tort Product Liability a 444 Welfare a 535 Death Penalty 'f CO , - ; \ I M , M J Q R A : F , I Q N ~ : 4 t : ~ ~ ' : , ; { ; : a 900Appeal of Fee Determinatia 290 All Other Real Properly"'" 1St 445 Amer. w/Disahilities a 540 Mandamus & Other a 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access_ \ Employmenta 1446 Amer. wlDisabilities aa 550 Civil Rights555 Prison Condition a 463 Haheas Corpus .Alien Detainee a to Justice950 Constitutionality o fOther a 465 Other Immigration State StatutesIX 440 Other Civil Rights Actions\JORIGIN (place an ux" in One Box Only) Appeal to Distri1 IOriginaiProceeding o 2 Removed fromState Court 0 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court 0 4 Reinstated orReopened 0 5 Transferred from~ ~ ! i % ~ l s t n c t 0 6 MultidistrictLitigation o 7 Judge fromMagistrateJudmnent

C ~ 2 t y j . ' S ~ t : ~ i g ~ ~ & ~ i II(ff:rhich yo u are filing (Do not cite jurisdictionalstatutes unless diversity):VI. CAUSE OF ACTION I - : : B : : - r i : - e f : : - d : : - e - s c ~ r i : - P t ' : " i o - n - o " : : ' f c - a - u s - e - : --------------------------------Claims under Civil I-


29/31


30/31

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION(Check Appropriate Category)

I " _ - A l ! ! \ " " ~ L - ! ! ' J ~ ! : : : : . . . J U - J i : : f 4 - - " " " ' - " L . . ! . . 1 . . - - - ' r . . . . ! . I . . L 7 I : J o ! L ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' counsel of record do hereby certify:$15 exclusive of interest and costs;

Relief other than monetary damages is sought.n 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of

Bogan Law Group, LLC 1800 JFK Blvd. Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19Attorney-at-Law Mary Elizabeth Bogan, Esquire Attorney LD.1t 57072

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.RC.P. 38.

I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending orwithin one year previously terminated action in this courtexcept as noted above.

Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.1t 57072av. 609 (6108)

Case 2:11-cv-07495-JP Document 1-1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 3 of 4


31/31

IN THEUNIlID STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASEMANAGEMENTTRACK DESIGNATION FORMPaige Robbins

ClVllAGlON

v. 11 7495NO.

lower Merion School District. Board of Directors of the lowerMerion School District. and Christopher W. McGinley

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court. counsel for plaintiff shall complete a CaseManagement Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1 03 of the plan set fonh on the reverse side of this form.) I" the event tha t a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regardingsaid designation, that'defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of coun and serve on the plaintiff and all otherparries, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should beassigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.c. 2241 through 2255.

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting reviewof a decision of the Secretary of Healthand Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.

(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under local Civil Rule 53.2.

(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injuryor property damage fromexposure to asbestos.

(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are...commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense ~ n a g e m e n t b y

the coun. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of specialmanagement cases.)

(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into anyone of the other tracks.

Mary Elizabeth Bogan, EsqUire12/7/11 Bogan Law Group, LLC 1800 JFK Blvd.Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19103Date Attorney-at-I..w

Attorney for Plaintiff __ ______ ~ _ D _ E _ C ~ 7 Z m t

Case 2:11-cv-07495-JP Document 1-1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 4 of 4
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

75129646 new robbins suit 2new

Documents