Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff-City’s action against defendants (City counsel and its members), alleging that disclosure of certain recorded telephone calls sought by defendants would violate federal wiretap statute. Instant action between executive and legislative components of same city is not justiciable since parties were part of same unit of government. Moreover, Dist. Ct. should have declined to consider instant action, where: (1) record showed that defendant had previously subpoenaed plaintiff for said recordings and had filed lawsuit in state court to enforce said subpoena; and (2) instant lawsuit was improper attempt to litigate in federal court, federal defense to existing state court action. Fact that individual defendants filed second lawsuit against plaintiff seeking damages under 18 USC section 2520, which was consolidated with instant action, did not require different result, since: (1) existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is necessary, but not sufficient condition for issuing declaratory judgment; and (2) by time of trial on instant lawsuit, defendants’ requests for damages had been resolved and their case had been dismissed.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Wiretap