and procmail performed operations affecting the email messages at issue, the messages existed in the random access memory (RAM) or in hard disks, or both, within Interior's computer system.” When defendant obtained the e-mails, they were in temporary storage in Interior's computer systems. There was also a stipulation that “[n]either sendmail nor procmail performed functions that affected the emails in issue while the emails were in transmission through wires or cables between computers.” This fact places the messages outside the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(a), and into temporary electronic storage under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17)(A). Accord Steiger, 318 F.3d at 1049; Konop, 302 F.3d at 878; Steve Jackson Games, 36 F.3d at 462; see also United States v. Moriarty, 962 F.Supp. 217 (D.Mass.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Reyes, 922 F.Supp. 818, 836
holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence holding that for wiretap act provisions to be violated as to electronic communications contemporaneous acquisition is necessary holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding the lack of a contemporaneous objection could not be salvaged by a motion for a mistrial