Poller v. Bioscrip, Inc., 2013 WL 5354753 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013)

Poller v. Bioscrip, Inc., 2013 WL 5354753 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013) “No language in the CFAA supports [the] argument that authorization to use a computer ceases when an employee resolves to use the computer contrary to the employer’s interest,” so long as that individual still technically possesses the right of computer access pursuant to his employ. In other words, exploitative …

United States v. Cave, 2013 WL 3766550 (D. Neb. July 16, 2013)

United States v. Cave, 2013 WL 3766550 (D. Neb. July 16, 2013) This is a criminal case where the defendant is charged with exceeding authorized access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In the opinion the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant was a police officer who was given access to the …

Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Intern. Union of North America, 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2011)

Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Intern. Union of North America, 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2011). In Pulte, a labor union directed the bombardment of Pulte’s sales offices and three of its executives with voluminous phone calls and e-mails of such a volume that the communications clogged access to Pulte’s voicemail system, prevented its customers …

RoadLink Workforce Solutions, L.L.C. v. Malpass, 2013 WL 5274812 (W.D. Wa. Sept. 18, 2013)

RoadLink Workforce Solutions, L.L.C. v. Malpass, 2013 WL 5274812 (W.D. Wa. Sept. 18, 2013). Employer granted employee authorization to access the information on the computer he is alleged to have to copied and deleted. Employer gave employee a computer with which he could maintain and update the purported trade secret information and other files. Under the Ninth Circuit’s …

Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013)

Property Rights Law Group, P.C. v. Lynch, 2013 WL 4791485 (D. Hawaii Sept. 6, 2013) (9th Cir.) Violations of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5) do not need to be pled with particularity. Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., 690 F. Supp.2d 760, 765 (N.D.Ill. 2009). “By contrast, section 1030(a)(4) is violated only if a defendant acts ‘with intent to defraud’ …

Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney, 2013 WL 4804980 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2013)

Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney, 2013 WL 4804980 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2013) (7th Cir.) Plaintiff asserted a civil claim for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and alleged that it suffered over $5,000 in damages–that is, it claimed its damages were its loss. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim because Plaintiff failed to …

Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013)

Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013) (3rd Cir.) The only allegation of direct wrongdoing in the Complaint was insufficient to state a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against the defendants: “Defendants intentionally accessed Mu Sigma’s protected computer without authorization … in violation of [18] U.S.C. § 1030(a) (5).” Needless …

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein, et al., 2013 WL 2666746 (D. Mass. June 10, 2013)

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein, et al., 2013 WL 2666746 (D. Mass. June 10, 2013) (1st Cir.) The court acknowledges that it is unclear whether the First Circuit follows the narrow access means access theory or the broader intended use theory but chooses to applythe narrow. Under this theory, it finds plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to …

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013)

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013) (4th Cir.) Sprint alleged the defendants committed these acts in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: (1) trafficked in confidential codes through which individuals could gainaccess to Sprint’s network (§ 1030(a)(6)); (2) intentionally accessed Sprint’s protected network without …

Mission Information Resources, Inc. v. Hult, 2013 WL 3776442 (D.N.H. July 17, 2013)

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 …