03/02/2020 In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. :: 2017 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US … However, this narrow exception applies where the party against whom disclosure is sought has an insufficient stake in the matter to risk a finding of contempt (see United States v Beltramea, 831 F3d 1022, 1024 [8th Cir 2016]; Matter of Air Crash at Belle Harbor, New York on November 12, 2001, 490 F3d 99, 107 [2d Cir 2007]; Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 528 F2d 983, 984 [5th Cir 1976]; see generally Perlman v United States, 247 US 7, 13 [1918]). Here, Facebook asserts an independent business and financial interest in ensuring that its users' privacy rights are respected. Thus, it follows that denial of review of the order denying its motion to quash the SCA warrants does not effectively render review impossible (see generally Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v Risjord, 449 US 368, 376 [1981]). Footnote 1: The SCA protects the rights of providers, not only by explicitly giving them the right to move to quash or modify if the material sought by the warrant is unusually voluminous or would present an undue burden, but also by allowing them to be reimbursed for the costs associated with assembling or providing the material under 18 USC § 2706. Footnote 2: Contrary to the majority's claim, while this is a narrow exception, Ryan does not limit it merely to cases "where the party against whom disclosure is sought has an insufficient stake in the matter to risk a finding of contempt" (majority op at 20 n 9). While the Supreme Court in Perlman v United States (247 US 7, 13 [1918]) stated the case was unique on the merits, it also noted that the government's contention that the party "was powerless to avert the mischief of the order but must accept its incidence and seek a remedy at some other time and in some other way," was "somewhat strange." Further, Perlman is but "one example" of the limited class of cases referenced in Ryan (United States v Beltramea, 831 F3d 1022, 1024 (8th Cir 2016). Footnote 3: Since the matter is expressly addressed by section 2703 (d), and Facebook relies on this subsection to support review on the merits, I have no reason to consider the dissent's analysis of standing under common law and federal law, and express no opinion on these alternative legal bases for appellate review. Footnote 4: Facebook has not properly asserted claims under our state constitution so I have no occasion to opine as to whether under our broad interpretation of New York's constitutional guarantees a service provider may appeal an order denying relief from an SCA warrant on the basis of its users' interests (see e.g. Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, 79 [1979] ["We have not hesitated when we concluded that the Federal Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court fell short of adequate protection for our citizens to rely upon the principle that that document defines the minimum level of individual rights and https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2017/16.html 36/44