Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-ZMF Document 31 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 14 Magistrate Judge abused his discretion in granting the § 1782 subpoena if the SCA does not block disclosure. See Resp. Objections at 19–37. The Court need take up only the first here. A. Stored Communications Act In challenging the Order, Facebook’s primary contention is that the SCA prohibits its disclosure of the deleted private pages and communications stored on its servers. The Court provides a brief overview of the Act’s statutory framework before assessing its applicability to the communications at issue. Statutory Background One of the difficulties this case presents is the interpretation of a communications statute enacted before the arrival of social media, smartphones, and the modern Internet. Passed in 1986, the SCA “creates a set of Fourth Amendment-like protections by statute, regulating the relationship between government investigators and service providers in possession of users’ private information.” Orin S. Kerr, A User’s Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator’s Guide to Amending It, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1208, 1212 (2004). It does so by limiting service providers’ knowing disclosure of stored electronic communications, see 18 U.S.C. § 2702, and imposing procedural requirements on the Government’s attempts to compel disclosure from these providers. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703. Its protections apply to content held by two types of service providers: providers of an “electronic communication service” (ECS), defined as “any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications,” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(15), and providers of a “remote computing service” (RCS), which “means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.” 18 U.S.C. § 2711(2). 6