Gilday v. Dubois
Case Date: 09/03/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1831
|
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 96-1831 WILLIAM MORRILL GILDAY, JR., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. LARRY DUBOIS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] Before Cyr, Circuit Judge, Stearns, U.S. District Judge, and Gertner, U.S. District Judge. Mark M. Owen, with whom Edward S. Rooney, Jr., Andrea C. Dow and Lyne, Woodworth & Evarts LLP were on brief for appellant. Philip W. Silva, Department of Correction, with whom Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, was on brief for appellees Dubois and Matesanz. Thomas R. Teehan for appellee New England Telephone and Telegraph Company. Susan E. Stenger, with whom Lawrence G. Green and Perkins, Smith & Cohen, LLP were on brief for appellee AT&T Corp. August 29, 1997 Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. CYR, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff William Morrill Gilday, Jr. challenges a summary judgment ruling dismissing his civil rights claims and related claims for civil contempt against appellees Larry Dubois and James Matesanz, of the Massachusetts Department of Correction ("DOC"), and appellees American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation ("AT&T") and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ("NET"). As Gilday failed to generate a trialworthy issue with respect to any claim, we affirm the district court judgment. I BACKGROUND After killing a Boston police officer during a 1970 bank robbery in Brighton, Massachusetts, Gilday was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery, for which he is now serving concurrent life sentences at the Bay State Correctional Center in Norfolk, Massachusetts. In 1974, Gilday commenced a civil rights action in federal district court against various FBI and DOC offi- cials, see Gilday v. Webster, No. 74-4169-C, alleging interference with attorney-client communications in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of the federal and state wiretap statutes, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510 et seq., and Mass. Gen. L. ch. The relevant facts are related in the light most favorable to Gilday, against whom summary judgment entered. Hegarty v. Somerset County, 53 F.3d 1367, 1370, n.1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 675 (1995). 2 272, SS 99 et seq. Gilday alleged that federal and state officials were opening his prison mail and intercepting his telephone communications in a coordinated effort to gather information regarding others involved in the Brighton bank robbery. Approximately ten years later, Gilday and four DOC officials entered into a stipulation ("settlement stipulation") which led to the following permanent injunction against the DOC and the defendant DOC officials on September 12, 1984 ("the Gilday injunction"): PERMANENT INJUNCTION Having reviewed and approved the Settle- ment Stipulation dated September 10, 1984, and after hearing, it is hereby ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. All officers, agents, ser- vants, employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently, under both 18 U.S.C. S 2510 et seq. and M.G.L. c. 272, S 99 et seq., from intercepting, en- deavoring to intercept, or pro- curing any other person to in- tercept or endeavor to inter- cept, any wire communication by or to plaintiff William Gilday without a specific court order or legislative authorization to do so, except as specifically permitted by these statutes, taken together, as they have been amended or may be amended Around the same time, Gilday brought a pro se action against four supervisory DOC officials alleging due process violations, denial of access to the courts, and theft of personal belongings. See Gilday v. Boone, 657 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981). Gilday proceeded with the action against the nonsettling DOC officials. 3 and as they have been construed or may be construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. [mail restrictions] 3. This Permanent Injunction, entered pursuant to the settle- ment stipulation dated Septem- ber 10, 1984, shall operate prospectively only; it shall not prejudice the rights of nonsettling defendants or, of its own force, affect the rights of inmates other than William Gilday. (Emphasis added.) Over the next ten years, however, developments in electronic technology, as well as inmate ingenuity, prompted increased prison-telephone abuses, such as acquiring merchandise by fraud, promoting drug violations, soliciting murder, harassing crime victims, witnesses, and public officials, facilitating escape plots, violating court restraining orders, and threatening domestic violence. The DOC responded in 1993 by inviting telephone-system vendors to furnish, install, and maintain an advanced prison telephone system designed to deter inmate abuses by monitoring, recording, and "detailing" their calls. Ultimately, NET contracted to produce, install, and For example, one DOC inmate alone managed to mischarge 271 so- called "third-party" calls to a single business firm in one month. See infra note 19. Call "detailing" involves recording such billing-related matters as the number called and the duration of the call. 4 maintain an inmate telephone system for all DOC facilities, which became known as the Massachusetts Inmate Telephone System ("MITS"), to supply both local and long distance service and remit to the DOC forty percent of the gross revenues from inmate calls. NET in turn subcontracted with AT&T to furnish long distance MITS service. A third company, Telematic Corporation, contracted with AT&T and NET to provide the electronic equipment and software needed to provision the system. On April 8, 1994, the DOC promulgated new inmate telephone regulations, see 103 C.M.R. SS 482.00 et seq. ("MITS Regulations"), "establish[ing] Department procedures regarding access to, use of and the monitoring and/or recording of inmate telephones." Id. S 482.01. Under the MITS Regulations, a personal identification number ("PIN") is randomly assigned to each inmate. The inmate must dial the assigned PIN immediately before dialing the telephone number, whereupon an automatic operator completes the connection. No more than fifteen designated parties are accessible with any PIN: ten friends and family members and five attorneys. See id. S 482.07(3)(c); Bender Aff. q 8. The right to call designated attorneys may not be suspended or curtailed except during an institutional emergency, see id. SS 482.08-482.09, whereas the right to call other designated parties is subject to disciplinary restriction, see id. SS 482.07(3)(h), 482.09. In addition, all inmates are allowed to call three prison legal- service organizations. Stickers on all MITS telephones alert inmates to the 5 monitoring/recording regime. All inmate calls, except pre- authorized attorney calls and legal-service organization calls, are automatically recorded. Certain "detailing" information is recorded on all calls either attempted or completed. Finally, all except attorney and legal-service organization calls may be subjected to concurrent monitoring ( i.e., listened in on) by autho- rized DOC personnel, either at random or for investigative purposes. See id. S 482.07(3)(d). In order to obtain an individual PIN, the inmate must complete and sign a "Number Request Form," designating the attorney and nonattorney telephone numbers which may be called. The form advises inmates that their "acceptance and use of a PIN and use of inmate telephones shall be deemed as consent to the conditions and restrictions placed upon inmate telephone calls, including call monitoring, recording, and call detail." All inmate calls must be placed "collect." Id. S 482.07(3)(a). Each call begins with a recorded message audible by both parties that the call has been placed "collect" by a DOC inmate and is subject to recordation and "detailing." See id. S 482.07(3)(g); Kennedy Aff. q 10. Both parties hear the entire message, but there can be no communication until the collect call has been accepted by the person called. See 103 C.M.R. S 482.07(3)(f); Bender Aff. q 11. Gilday declined to submit a PIN request form, on the ground that the MITS contravenes the federal and state wiretap 6 statutes and therefore violates the Gilday injunction. At about the same time, Gilday mailed AT&T and NET copies of the Gilday injunction entered September 12, 1984, see supra pp. 3-4, advising that their provision of MITS services would violate the injunction. Shortly thereafter Gilday petitioned the federal district court for a contempt citation against AT&T, NET, and various DOC officials, claiming that the defendants were "endeavoring to intercept" his telephone communications. Although neither AT&T nor NET was privy to the Gilday injunction, Gilday asserted that both received actual notice by mail, supra pp. 6-7, and therefore knowingly aided and abetted the alleged violations by the DOC defendants. Finally, Gilday alleged, the defendants were depriving him of his "federal right to be free of any interception of his wire communications," as well as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts, by restricting consultation with counsel regarding six pending judicial proceedings. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, on the ground that the Gilday injunction bans neither monitoring nor recording, but only "interceptions." It noted that no secretive, nonconsensual monitoring or recording hence no Consequently, for the most part Gilday has been without telephone access since the MITS went into operation. Under a stipulation among the parties, however, he has been allowed limited telephone use in order to communicate with counsel regarding his unrelated appeal in Gilday v. Callahan, 866 F.Supp. 611 (D. Mass. 1994), aff'd, 59 F.3d 257 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1269 (1996). 7 "interception" had occurred under either wiretap statute, since all recording and monitoring is well advertised as required by the MITS Regulations. See supra p. 6. The district court reasoned that inmates render the MITS monitoring/recording regime consensual by executing the request form and utilizing the MITS. And since it found the term "interception" ambiguous at best, the district court determined to resolve any interpretive doubts favorably to the defendants. Finally, it dismissed the Gilday claims relating to call "detailing," on the ground that Langton v. Hogan, 71 F.3d 930 (1st Cir. 1995), had already endorsed the MITS practice in this regard. Accordingly, it concluded that the attendant recording and monitoring did not constitute an "interception" under either the federal or state wiretap statute, thus did not contravene the Gilday injunction. Thereafter, the district court dismissed the section 1983 claims as well, on the ground that Gilday retained all mail privileges, access to a prison law library, the right to meet with counsel and, under the MITS regulations, the right to conduct unmonitored telephone communications with five attorneys and three legal-service organizations. The district court likewise determined that the defendant DOC officials came within the "law enforcement" exceptions to the respective wiretap statutes. See 18 U.S.C. S 2510(5)(a)(ii) (excluding interceptions by an "investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties"); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 272, S 99(D)(1)(c) (exempting federal law enforcement officials); see also, e.g., United States v. Sababu, 891 F.2d 1308, 1328-29 (7th Cir. 1989) (concluding that a prison monitoring regime, conducted as part of an "institutionalized, ongoing policy[,]" does not constitute "interception"). 8 II DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A summary judgment ruling is reviewed de novo and must be affirmed if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "reveals no trialworthy issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Velez-Gomez v. SMA Life Assur. Co., 8 F.3d 873, 874-75 (1st Cir. 1993). Moreover, we may affirm "on any independently sufficient ground." Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc., 827 F.2d 859, 860-61 (1st Cir. 1987). B. The Contempt Claims Gilday mounts several challenges to the district court rulings on the contempt claims. We address these arguments in turn, mindful that it was for Gilday to establish by "'clear and convincing evidence[,]'" Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Langton v. Johnston, 928 F.2d 1206, 1220 (1st Cir. 1991)), that the particular defendant violated an unambiguous consent decree "that left no reasonable doubt as to what behavior was to be expected," id. at 17. See also Porrata v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 958 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1992) (stating that complainant must clearly establish that "a lucid and unambiguous consent order has been violated"); NBA Properties, Inc. v. Gold, 895 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1990) (similar). Moreover, "'the party enjoined must be able to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden.'" Kemp, 947 F.2d at 17 9 (quoting Drywall Tapers & Painters of Greater N.Y., Local 1974 v. Local 530 of Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Int'l Ass'n , 889 F.2d 389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted)); see also Reed v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. , 607 F.2d 749, 752 (6th Cir. 1979) (stating that judicial order must "clearly tell a reasonable person what he is required to do or abstain from doing"). From these requirements flows the important corollary that courts are to construe ambigu- ities and omissions in consent decrees as "'redound[ing] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.'" NBA Properties , 895 F.2d at 32 (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam)); see also Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16 (same). 1. Issue Preclusion As a threshold matter, Gilday insists that the DOC defendants are collaterally estopped from contending that the MITS does not violate the Gilday injunction, because this issue was resolved in Langton v. Hogan, No. 79-2167-Z, 1995 WL 96948 (D. Mass. Feb. 21, 1995), which culminated in a permanent injunction ("the Langton injunction") almost identical to the Gilday injunc- tion. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars relitigation of any issue " actually decided in previous litigation 'between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.'" Grella v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank , 42 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting Dennis v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust , 744 F.2d 893, 899 (1st Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments, S 27 (1982)). Although "[a]n issue may be 'actually' 10 decided even if it is not explicitly decided, for it may have constituted, logically or practically, a necessary component of the decision reached in the prior litigation," Grella, 42 F.3d at 30-31 (emphasis in original), the narrow, fact-based district court decision in Langton had simply declined to modify the injunction in that case, to permit monitoring and recording, because there was no evidence of inmate-telephone abuse by Langton or his fellow plaintiff. Thus, as the district court ruling on the petition for modification in Langton neither addressed nor implicated the question whether the MITS violates either the state or federal wiretap statute, see Langton, No. 79-2167-Z, 1995 WL 96948, it neither "actually" nor "necessarily" determined that the MITS regime violated the Langton injunction, let alone the Gilday injunction. See Grella, 42 F.3d at 30 (stating that "the determi- nation of the issue must have been essential to the judgment"); see also NLRB v. Donna-Lee Sportswear Co., Inc., 836 F.2d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1987) (same). 2. Claim Preclusion Gilday next contends that the 1984 consent decree precludes the DOC defendants from claiming that the MITS does not violate the Gilday injunction, because our decision in Langton v. Hogan, 71 F.3d 930, 933-35 (1st Cir. 1995), involving a similar Furthermore, a determination that the MITS violated the Langton injunction with its materially different language and discrete purpose, see infra, pp. 12-25 could not constitute a determination that the Gilday injunction, with its less restrictive language and scope, see infra p. 25, had been violated. 11 injunction, held that the DOC was precluded from contesting the meaning of the same state and federal wiretap statutes there involved without first obtaining a court order modifying the injunction. Once again we are unable to agree, as the Langton panel decision is inapposite for several reasons. First, although the parties to a consent decree are bound by traditional preclusion principles and may not litigate claims necessarily resolved by the decree, see id. at 933-34, the Gilday injunction unlike the Langton injunction expressly provided that reported decisions authoritatively construing the relevant state and federal wiretap statutes (hereinafter: "authoritative decisions") were to control their future construction for all purposes material to the Gilday injunction. See supra pp. 3-4 ("All [DOC agents] are enjoined permanently . . . from . . . endeavoring to intercept . . . any wire communication by or to [Gilday] . . . except as specifically permitted by these statutes . . . as they have been construed or may be construed in [authori- tative decisions]."). (Emphasis added.) Thus, the construction suggested by Gilday would ignore language expressly limiting the scope of the Gilday injunction. See Mackin v. City of Boston , 969 F.2d 1273, 1277 (1st Cir. 1992) (declining to construe consent decree so as to "overlook[] the language of the decree itself"). See also United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co. , 420 U.S. 223, 236-37 (1975) (construing consent decrees as contracts); System- ized of New England, Inc. v. SCM, Inc., 732 F.2d 1030, 1034 (1st Cir. 1984) (noting that courts are to adopt constructions that 12 "give meaning and effect to every part of a contract and reject those which reduce words to mere surplusage"). Accordingly, the Gilday injunction did not preclude reliance on intervening authori- tative decisions construing the state and federal wiretap statutes. Instead, "construed as it is written," United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971), the Gilday injunction, unlike the Langton injunction, plainly envisioned their consideration. Second, although the Langton panel majority concluded that the DOC had relinquished any right to litigate the meaning of these wiretap statutes as against the Langton inmates, see Langton, 71 F.3d at 933-34, it did so because it believed those inmates otherwise would have gained nothing beyond a mere promise by the DOC to obey the law: The usually understood meaning of a Settlement Stipulation is that each party is agreeing to give up something to yield on one or more reasonably plausible contentions of law, or fact, or mixed-law-fact issues. "[T]he agree- ment reached normally embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost and elimi- nation of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they pro- ceeded with the litigation." When making an agreement for a consent decree, the parties to a case are agreeing not to press any of their disputes to decision in court. The parties forego "their right to litigate issues in- volved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense and inevitable risk of liti- gation." The Langton injunction prohibited the DOC defendants from intercepting inmate wire communications except as specifically permitted by the federal and state wiretap statutes "as they have been construed in reported decisions that are binding on this court or in the state courts of Massachusetts." Langton, 71 F.3d at 931 (emphasis added). 13 Id. (quoting Armour & Co., 402 U.S. at 681) (internal citation omitted). On the other hand, in the present case the consent decree secured Gilday a substantial independent benefit unavailable to the Langton plaintiffs. As the district court recognized, Gilday had alleged in his 1974 action against the DOC that he was the target of two secret federal and state law enforcement efforts, directed by the FBI and code-named "STOP" and "GILROB," aimed at gathering information about his as-yet unapprehended accomplices in the Brighton bank robbery. See supra p. 3. In securing the 1984 consent decree, therefore, Gilday obtained permanent injunctive relief from any DOC participation in current or future wire- communication interceptions unlawfully directed against him by these state and federal law enforcement agencies consideration unavailable to the Langton litigants. Accordingly, notwithstanding that the Gilday consent decree permitted the DOC to litigate future unresolved issues relating to the meaning of the applicable wiretap statutes, Gilday obtained substantial consideration for entering into the settlement with the DOC. Thus, the Langton panel majority's concerns over a lack of meaningful consideration for the Langton plaintiffs' consent are not implicated to the same degree in the present context. Finally, the Langton and Gilday cases presented themselves in materially different ways on appeal. The Langton panel was asked to review, inter alia, a district court ruling denying a DOC petition to modify the Langton injunction. See id. 14 at 931. On appeal, the DOC claimed that the district court had broadened the injunction impermissibly in favor of the Langton inmates. Id. at 933. The Langton panel majority first decided that the parties had relinquished their respective rights to litigate the meaning of the wiretap statutes underlying the injunction, and then determined that no authoritative decision, existing at the time the Langton injunction issued, specifically supported the challenged MITS monitoring and recording practices. Finally, the Langton majority went on to survey subsequent decisional law, simply noting without resolving the merits that "reasonable [competing] arguments can be advanced" as to whether the challenged MITS monitoring and recording regime violated the federal wiretap statute. Id. at 935-37; see also id. at 940 ("Nor does the panel majority hold that the present regime is unlawful under the federal and state statutes but only that reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.") (Boudin, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Langton majority simply decided that the DOC had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating any change in the law, or the facts, which would warrant modification of the injunction. See id. at 937-38 (sustaining modification ruling as "appropriately tailored to the only changes in law or in fact disclosed on the record before the district court"). In the present case, on the other hand, Gilday alleges DOC violations of an injunction which expressly contemplates that authoritative decisions subsequent to the Gilday injunction may 15 determine whether a violation has occurred. See supra pp. 12-13. Moreover, since the Langton panel majority never reached the merits regarding the lawfulness of the MITS regime under either wiretap statute, see supra p. 15, we may consider afresh whether the challenged MITS practices violate the Gilday injunction. Finally, we are required to review the district court's summary judgment ruling against Gilday de novo. See Velez-Gomez, 8 F.3d at 874-75. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the DOC is entitled to litigate the meaning of the applicable wiretap statutes. 3. The Gilday Injunction Gilday argues that the DOC defendants violated the Gilday injunction by endeavoring to monitor and record his wire communica- tions in violation of the state and federal wiretap statutes. The linchpin in this argument is that no authoritative decision "specifically" construes either the federal or state wiretap statute to "permit" the inmate-telephone system established under the MITS. In other words, Gilday argues that the injunction is violated absent an authoritative decision validating either the MITS regime itself or substantially similar practices in a comparable prison context. At its most particular level, this contention would necessitate an authoritative decision declaring the challenged MITS practices compatible with the applicable wiretap statutes. We test this contention against the language employed in the Gilday injunction, viewed in its unique litigation context, 16 including the particular circumstances surrounding its formation and the basic purposes it was designed to serve. See ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. at 238 (construing ambiguous language in consent decree in light of "the circumstances surround- ing [its] . . . formation"); see also Massachusetts Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. King, 668 F.2d 602, 607-08 (1st Cir. 1981) (construing consent decree in light of its language, the circumstances surrounding its formation, and its basic purposes); Cornelius v. Hogan, 663 F.2d 330, 333 (1st Cir. 1981) (noting that court construing ambiguous consent decree may "inquire into the parties' intent and the circumstances surrounding the decree in order to select the most reasonable interpretation"). As a preliminary matter it is necessary to note, however, that no violation of the injunction can be found unless Gilday first established an "interception," as defined under either the federal or Massachusetts wiretap statute, based on "clear and convincing evidence," Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16 (citation and quotation marks omitted). See infra pp. 25-27, 29-30. Therefore, Gilday's insistent contention on appeal that no MITS practice can ever be allowed under the Gilday injunction unless it has been "specifically permitted" beforehand by an authoritative decision cannot succeed. Moreover, even assuming Gilday were to demonstrate an "interception," the injunction expressly excepts from its reach any practice "specifically permitted" under the wiretap statutes as construed in authoritative decisions, see supra pp. 3-4, and the 17 term "specifically permitted" is susceptible to various reasonable interpretations. On the one hand, "specifically permitted" may be read to require an authoritative decision that the MITS regime, as applied directly to Gilday, comports with the applicable wiretap statutes. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2187 (1986) (noting that term "specific" may connote restriction "to a particular individual"); see also Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, U.S. , , 116 S. Ct. 1103, 1111 (1996) (noting that "'[s]pecifically' can mean 'explicitly, particularly, [or] definitively'") (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1398 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added)). Under such a reading, an authoritative decision would be unavailing to the DOC defendants unless it explicitly addressed the MITS monitoring and recording of wire communications involving Gilday. On the other hand, "specifically permitted" may contemplate simply an authoritative decision upholding interceptions involving some other DOC inmate or DOC inmates in general. See Webster's Third New International Dictio- nary at 2187 (noting that "specific" may merely restrict to a particular situation). Under these interpretations, therefore, Gilday would need to demonstrate simply an absence of authoritative decisions specifically permitting the challenged MITS practices as applied directly to him or to similarly situated inmates. See Ambiguity is the "condition of being understood in more than one way." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2187 (1966); see also William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity 1 (2d ed. 1966) (defining ambiguity as "any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language"). 18 Langton, 71 F.3d at 935-37 (noting no reported decision "holding that this type of prison telephone monitoring system" meets "consent" exception to federal wiretap statute). Alternatively, at a more universal level, "specifically permitted" may simply contemplate an authoritative decision upholding the general types or kinds of monitoring and recording practices prescribed by the MITS, without regard to whether the practices were employed in a prison context. See 2 The Oxford English Dictionary 2949 (Compact Ed. 1987) (defining "specifically" as "[i]n something of the same kind"); see also Webster's Third New International Dictionary at 2187 (defining "specific" as "constituting or falling into the category specified"); Webster's New World Dictionary of American English 1287 (3d ed. 1988) (defining "specific" as being "of a special, or particular, sort or kind"); Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1132 (1989) (defining "specific" as "sharing or being those properties of something that allow it to be referred to a particular category"). Under the latter interpretation, of course, Gilday would need to demonstrate an absence of authoritative decisions vindicating the kinds of practices utilized under the MITS, without necessary regard to the exact context in which the practices were applied, thereby implicating any relevant authoritative decision addressing the applicable wiretap statutes. Thus, under the latter interpretation only unlawful MITS practices would be barred by the 19 Gilday injunction. Ambiguities in an injunctive decree are construed in the light most favorable to the alleged contemnor. See Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16; NBA Properties, 895 F.2d at 32; see also United States v. O'Quinn, 913 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1990); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 339 (2d Cir. 1985); New York Tel. Co. v. Communication Workers of America, 445 F.2d 39, 48 (2d Cir. 1971); Ford, 450 F.2d at 280; 11 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil S 2955, at 310 (1995 & Supp. 1996) (same). For present purposes, therefore, the Gilday injunction would be construed as banning only unlawful interceptions. The litigation context underlying the Gilday consent decree likewise commends the latter construction. See ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. at 238 (construing ambiguous consent-decree language in light of "circumstances surrounding [its] formation . . ."); see also King, 668 F.2d at 607 (similar). Throughout the district court action terminated by the consent decree, the DOC defendants steadfastly denied "monitoring," The latter construction is strongly suggested by other language in the Gilday consent decree itself, which explicitly links its injunctive ban to the relevant federal and state wiretap statutes, thereby indicating that the ban was not meant to prohibit conduct lawful under the wiretap statutes themselves either because the practice in question did not constitute an "interception" or it constituted a lawful "interception" as construed in authoritative decisions, extant or forthcoming. See Armour & Co. , 402 U.S. at 678-80 (construing particular provisions in light of other language in decree); Brewster v. Dukakis, 687 F.2d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1982) (construing consent decree provision in relation to other language in decree); United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1507-08 (11th Cir. 1993) (construing "consent decree as a whole"). 20 "recording," or "intercepting" any wire communication involving Gilday. Thus, implicit in the stance taken by Gilday now is the suggestion that the DOC defendants impliedly conceded prior violations of the relevant wiretap statutes simply by entering into the stipulation of dismissal, whereas the record flatly contradicts any such concession. Instead, the stipulation of dismissal substantiates the view that the DOC defendants simply agreed to an injunction which required their compliance with the applicable federal and state law governing "interceptions." Viewed in context, therefore, the Gilday consent decree entailing no resolution of the central dispute as to whether the DOC defendants ever "monitored" or "recorded," let alone "inter- cepted," any Gilday wire communication is most harmoniously construed as an agreement that the DOC defendants were to refrain from any "interception" violative of either wiretap statute, as The stipulation of dismissal stated: By entering into this stipulation, these [signatory] defendants do not admit, but rath- er, generally deny that they have ever violat- ed the plaintiff's rights under . . . the federal wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. S 2150 et seq., [and] the state wiretapping statute, M.G.L. c. 272, SS 99 et seq. . . . as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants specifically deny that any of them, or anyone acting in concert with any of them, ever intercepted or monitored any of the plaintiff's wire communi- cations by any means, lawful or unlawful . . . . See Settlement Stipulation: Claims Against Defendants Fair, Vose, Hall and Callahan, Gilday v. Fair, et al., Civ. A. No. 74-4169-C (emphasis added). 21 determined under either existing or future authoritative decisions. That is to say, the Gilday consent decree bans only unlawful DOC monitoring and recording practices. See Settlement Stipulation: Claims Against Defendants Fair, Vose, Hall and Callahan, Gilday v. Fair, et al., Civ. A. No. 74-4169-C, discussed supra pp. 20-21 & n.12; see also supra pp. 3-4. The suggested construction comports with the Langton panel majority opinion as well, which held that the Langton injunc- tion banned any "interception" absent "a specific court order or legislative authorization to do so, except as specifically permitted by these statutes, . . . as they have been construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts." Langton, 71 F.3d at 931 (emphasis added). Thus, the Langton panel majority reasoned that the consent decree was to be construed as requiring the DOC defendants to refrain, in perpetuity, from contesting the meaning of the relevant state and federal wiretap statutes "as construed in reported decisions that [were] binding in [the federal district court] or in the state courts of Massachusetts" at the time the Langton injunction was entered, see id. at 931, 933-35, as distinguished from merely requiring the DOC defendants to refrain from unlawful interceptions. As the Langton panel majority viewed the matter, any other approach threatened to render the terms of the Langton injunction "illusory stating nothing beyond what was already forbidden by law before the Permanent Injunction was entered." Id. at 933 (emphasis added); but see id. at 940 (Boudin, J., dissent- 22 ing); see also supra pp. 13-14. The panel majority relied as well on the final section in the Langton injunction, which stated in terms similar to the Gilday injunction, see supra p. 4, that the injunction "shall not of its own force affect the rights of inmates of the Department other than William Langton and David LeBlanc." See Langton, 71 F.3d at 933. It reasoned that had the DOC promised merely to obey the law, no purpose would have been served by the quoted provision. See id. Once again, however, the two cases presented themselves on appeal in materially different postures. First, as discussed supra pp. 14-16, the repeated observation by the Langton panel majority, see Langton, 71 F.3d at 933-37 that no then-existing authoritative decision specifically permitted the challenged MITS practices and that the Langton decree would be rendered meaningless were it to be construed as a mere promise to obey the law is inapposite to the instant context. That is, central to the present analysis is the explicit language in the Gilday injunction ("or may be construed in reported decisions"), see supra p. 4 (emphasis added) nowhere to be found in the Langton injunction, see 71 F.3d at 931 which in no sense purports to prohibit either (i) these parties from litigating open questions as to the meaning of the applicable wiretap statutes, or (ii) our consideration of later authoritative decisions upholding monitoring and recording practices of the kind prescribed by the MITS, see infra pp. 45-48. Second, since the settlement stipulation and the consent decree in Gilday were entered into while the parties in Langton were still 23 litigating the initial action which led to the Langton injunction, paragraph 3 in the Gilday injunction ( viz., "[t]his Permanent Injunction . . . shall not . . . affect the rights of inmates other than William Gilday[,]") served the discrete purpose of not disturbing the rights of the Langton inmates whose initial action against the DOC was to remain in litigation for two months after the consent decree was entered in Gilday. Accordingly, unlike the corresponding provision in the Langton injunction, paragraph 3 in the Gilday injunction is entirely consistent with the view that the Gilday injunction simply contemplates that the DOC not violate the applicable wiretap statutes. For these reasons we conclude, notwithstanding their similarities, that the Gilday injunction is substantially less restrictive in scope than the Langton injunction, in that it unambiguously enjoins only unlawful recording and monitoring practices by the DOC. The Gilday injunction was entered on September 12, 1984; the Langton injunction, on November 16, 1984. It is noteworthy as well that the complaint in the action which gave rise to the Gilday injunction alleged that Gilday "has never consented, nor upon information and belief has any person with whom he communicated consented, that wire communications to or from him be intercepted or monitored in any way." Second Amended Complaint, Gilday v. Webster, et al., No. 74-4169-C. The Gilday complaint in the present action indicates that his concern in the former action was not with all interceptions of his telephone calls, however, but only with interceptions unlawful under the applicable wiretap statutes because allegedly conducted without the requisite consent. Thus, the more narrow concern reflected in the present complaint comports with the view that the Gilday settlement stipulation and consent decree were meant to ban only unlawful interceptions. 24 A. The Massachusetts Wiretap Act We must now consider whether Gilday demonstrated by "clear and convincing evidence," Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16, that the challenged MITS practices constitute unlawful interceptions under the applicable wiretap statutes, beginning with the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, bearing in mind that it was for Gilday to show that the DOC defendants "violated a clear and unambiguous order that left no reasonable doubt as to what behavior was to be expected" and that the defendants were "'able to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden.'" Id. at 17 (quoting Drywall Tapers, 889 F.2d at 395). First, we inquire whether the monitoring, recording, and call "detailing" practices prescribed by the MITS Regulations are "interceptions" under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 272, S 99(B)(4). Second, should Gilday successfully surmount the first hurdle, we determine whether any such interpretation is nevertheless permitted under any authoritative decision binding on the federal district court. Finally, we conclude that Gilday failed to prove either that the monitoring and recording |