Mission Information Resources, Inc. v. Hult, 2013 WL 3776442 (D.N.H. July 17, 2013) (1st Cir.)
Defendant’s argument for dismissal may “depend on an erroneously stringent view of federal pleading requirements (e.g., that, at the pleading stage, MIR needs to ‘identify [the] files, programs, folders and systems’ that Hult allegedly deleted from his MIR-issued laptop in order to state claims based on that conduct.”
Published by Shawn E. Tuma
Shawn Tuma is an attorney who is internationally recognized in cybersecurity, computer fraud and data privacy law, areas in which he has practiced for nearly two decades. He is a Partner at Spencer Fane, LLP where he regularly serves as outside cybersecurity and privacy counsel to a wide range of companies from small to midsized businesses to Fortune 100 enterprises. You can reach Shawn by telephone at 972.324.0317 or email him at stuma@spencerfane.com.
View more posts
