In Re Coronavirus Emails
72 U.Va. 20 (2020)
JONES, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which PALMER, GLADDEN, TANG, and IMADI, JJ. join. RE, J. and TONSETH, J. filed concurring opinions.
I. Factus Prospectus
This Court does declare, that on the week starting on Sunday, March 8, 2020, and for the weeks thereafter, and maybe even for a few weeks there-before, the complainants’ inboxes did overfloweth with emails related to the current pandemic. After much deliberation and investigation, this Court found that some of the complainants were also found to be email senders, and email senders were found to be complainants as well. As a senior OWLS (Older Wiser Law Student) of this Court, the Justice who scribed this case was found to be one of the few who could have adjudicated this case, as it is well known that OWLS are email-phobic and thus unlikely to read an email and much less send an email. Thus, Justice Jones was found to have no conflicts and to have almost never sent emails. The case was therefore allowed to be appealed from the lower court judgement.[1]
II. Specific Factual Allegations
Complainants allege too many people are sending too many emails and that many of these heretofore emails are filled to the brims with words dry in substance, leaving the reader’s thirst for true information unquenched in a time when there is endless thirst for information in the air.[2] Complainants also allege specifically that Stephen T. Parr, the man who controls the weather, has abandoned his role as canceller of class on snow days in favor of one who sends coronavirus emails. Furthermore, persons and corporations (who are also persons) who have no duty or dealings with the coronavirus have been seen spreading emails faster than any virus could travel. These include the bank, Amtrak (who only announced they will be cleaning their trains), and Finding Rover (which has my cat’s microchip information). Furthermore, every email raised issues of good feelings throughout, making it harder to see what actual information was attempted to be transmitted.[3]
III. Issues Raised
Complainants alleged both tortious interference with inbox management in a time when students are not apt to be able to handle emails, namely during the period known as “Spring Break.” They allege that during this period, they were expecting to simply “chill out” when the dam of emails crashed down upon them like a reservoir into a coal mine.[4] Students have had to create entire folders for certain emails, and they wish to be left in peace and go back to the days when pigeons sent little messages between student inboxes.[5]
IV. Analysis
Considering the causes of action before it, this court weighs heavily on the law of equity and not the law of law, which is tangled before the law of equity. Before all this endemic, systemic pandemic caused a lot of stress in our academic lives, students were free to simply show up to class, hope they learn something, and carry on. Now, students must do a cost-benefit analysis when every email shows up in their inbox, decide if the cost of not reading the email and missing something outweighs the benefits, and wander forth into the great virtual unknown.[6] This is certainly an undue burden by any petty standard, and this Court would be remiss in equity to allow this tortious behavior to continue.
V. Relief
Everyone is ordered to immediately condense all emails into something resembling the hundreds of Campbell’s tomato soup cans crowded into my spare room. In this time of hoarding, let us not treat emails like toilet paper, as something to be collected and held onto for their further value. Emails should be like Chipotle, which is to say consumed as quickly as possible and then having the consequences dealt with later. In addition, injunctive relief is ordered immediately, and all persons are ordered to ask, “Does this need to be sent?” before any emails are sent. DECIDED.
Justice RE, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately to address two other issues, or possibly more than two if I think of anything else while writing this.
First, I would like to note that this is the second time the Administration has granted (at least imperfectly) relief ordered by this Court. In Students v. Over Eager Administration, 369 U.Va. 75, 72 V.L.W. 14, 4 (2020), we held that the School violated students’ right to privacy during Winter Break by sending an email “show[ing] one of [plaintiff’s classmates], smiling on the cover, touting his most recent success and attributing it to ‘not sleeping until 2 p.m.’” Emotional damages were awarded in the form of another week off of school for the entire Law School. Id. While extending Spring Break through Wednesday did not fully fulfill the Court’s order, it nevertheless appears to be a substantial attempt to do so.
The School also largely complied with this Court’s ruling in 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U.Va. 100, 72 V.L.W. 16, 4 (2020). When cookies were no longer made available for 1Ls on Fridays this spring semester, the Court ordered that cookies be reinstated, id., and they were, albeit slowly. See ANG, Virginia Law Weekly, Volume 72, Number 17 (“Thumbs sideways to Student Affairs for the Valentine’s Day goodies. ANG greatly appreciated the sweets, even though ANG didn’t need more excuses to eat cupcakes alone and in sorrow. However, despite the decisive ruling by the Court of Petty Appeals in favor of ANG’s love of cookies, there were no actual cookies provided.”) and then the following week, ANG, Virginia Law Weekly, Volume 72, Number 18 (“Thumbs up to Student Affairs for the return of Cookies on Friday. ANG is unsure of whether it is the sugar high or the absolute power that ANG now wields through ANG’s influence by the Court of Petty Appeals decision that is driving a surely short lived positive attitude.”).[7]
Second, I would like to address toilet paper hoarding. While this was not at issue in the case before us, the Court of Petty Appeals is not bound by any sort of Article III “actual case or controversy” requirement. Since the Court mentioned toilet paper in dicta, I will address the topic. Who honestly needs that many rolls of toilet paper? Having two weeks’ worth of toilet paper seems like it would be more than enough, so is it really necessary to load your shopping cart up with a fourteen-month supply? See Jim Gaffigan, Beyond the Pale at 50:31 (“Ever notice there’s no dignified way to buy toilet paper? You always have to buy it in that multi-pack of like 18 rolls … everyone in the store’s like, ‘Does that guy ever leave the bathroom? What, is he living off of Hot Pockets?’”).[8] Save some for the rest of us.
These are trying times, and we are all called upon to do our duty for the good of all. But our burden for the time being is to stay in our apartments and watch TV. It is a task for which many of us have been training for years. There is reason for hope.
Justice TONSETH, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. As the sitting 1L Justice, I’m just happy to be on the winning side for once.
While I concur with the majority in regards to emails, I must respectfully disagree with the concurring opinion regarding toilet paper. While I do not fully condone hoarding, do you know how entertaining it is to see a common house cat tear apart a toilet paper roll? I thought I was watching the Lion King. You bet I bought twenty-four rolls so I can watch my cat manifest her true spirit animal on a daily basis.
---
jmj3vq@virginia.edu
wdr3mq@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] I cannot tell you what the lower court disposition is, as it was sent via email, and those who have read the opinion thus far know my aversion. Thus, in line with Petty Court precedent (“we do what we want”), I will not do what I don’t want, and thus this review will be de novo.
[2] The esteemed students of UVA law are naturally thirsty (for knowledge), yet in these times their thirstiness is multiplied many fold (thirstiness for knowledge).
[3] There is actual information which would give glee in the hearts of many, such as an announcement of pass-fail, which would raise joy
[4] See That One Torts Case, 123213 Queens Bench (1700’s? IDK.).
[5] Just as the founders imagined. Goodnight Mr. Jefferson.
[6] Career Services emails are exempted from this statement, as the wrath of the mighty K-Don with his hammer of shame for not reading emails is well-known.
[7] The Bluebook may describe how to properly cite an ANG, and though I refuse to open it and check, I did speak with someone on Law Review who said this was probably good enough.
[8] See footnote 1, supra, mutatis mutandis.