Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2020-P-0449 Filed: 7/20/2020 5:20 PM COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Appeals Court NO. 2020-P-0449 Middlesex, ss. JOSEPH A. CURTATONE, Appellant v. BARSTOOL SPORTS and KIRK MINIHANE, Appellees On Appeal From A Judgment Of The Middlesex Superior Court APPELLANT’S BRIEF FOR JOSEPH A. CURTATONE Date: 07/20/2020 Leonard H. Kesten Deidre Brennan Regan Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP 699 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 BBO #542042 BBO #552432 617-880-7100
[email protected] [email protected] BATEMAN & SLADE, INC. STONEHAM, MASSACHUSETTS - 1 - Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2020-P-0449 Filed: 7/20/2020 5:20 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................4 STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................7 STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................8 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..............................13 ARGUMENT.............................................15 A. Standard of Review.........................15 B. The Complaint States a Claim for Violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute....................................15 1. The Wiretap Statute...................15 2. Massachusetts Is a Two-Party Consent State.........................17 a. The Statute Permits Only A Person Given “Prior Authority” To Hear or To Record a Conversation............20 b. Consent Under the Wiretap Statute..........................21 c. “Consent” or “Authority” Obtained By Fraud is Invalid.....25 2. There Was No Valid Consent Here – Express Or Implied....................26 a. This Case Presents a Novel Issue Where Minihane Deliberately Misrepresented His Identity for the Express Purpose of Obtaining Curtatone’s Consent to the Conversation and Recording.......26 - 2 - Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2020-P-0449 Filed: 7/20/2020 5:20 PM b. The Circumstances Here Show There Was No Valid Consent to the Recording of the Telephone Conversation...........29 c.