No. 14-5123 Huff, et al. v. Spaw Page 6 that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 251– 52 (1986). When ruling on a summary-judgment motion, a court must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). IV. DISCUSSION A Title III makes it unlawful to “intentionally intercept[] . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). The act defines “intercept” to mean “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.” Id. § 2510(4). Title III further prohibits intentional disclosure or use of “the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of [Title III].” Id. § 2511(1)(c), (d). In addition to criminal penalties, Title III provides injured parties with a private right of action against violators. Id. § 2520(a). The Huffs relied upon this authorization of a private right of action to bring their federal claims. B As a threshold question, we consider whether the Huffs’ conversations were protected under Title III, which covers only wire, oral, or electronic communication as those terms are defined by the statute. In re Askin, 47 F.3d 100, 102–03 (4th Cir. 1995). Title III defines an oral communication for its purposes as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2). The language makes clear that Congress did not enact Title III to protect every face-to-face conversation from interception. We have held that a person engages in protected oral communication only if he exhibited “an expectation of privacy that is both subjectively and objectively reasonable.” Dorris v. Absher, 179 F.3d 420, 425 (6th Cir. 1999). This assessment parallels the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test articulated by Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J.,