F.Supp.2d 918, 921 (E.D.Mich.2003). The court granted the motion because it found that based upon the new evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could infer that the defendant did in fact unlawfully intercept or aid in intercepting DIRECTV’s signals using the devices. Id. DIRECTV contends that the Karpinsky opinions, considered together, implicitly support the proposition that a defendant’s purchase of a Pirate Access Device, coupled with evidence of the defendant’s purchase or possession of a DIRECTV satellite system, is sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. A plaintiff need not produce direct evidence to establish that a communication was received or intercepted, but may rely upon circumstantial evidence to do so. See Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1578 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In spite of the large number of cases DIRECTV
holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a  1983 claim holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove a wiretap claim including actual interception holding that circumstantial evidence maybe sufficient to prove venue holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination