ELLIOTT GREENLEAF WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFEAT A COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT LAWSUIT
Elliott Greenleaf won dismissal of a federal lawsuit asserting 5 varying claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. §§1030 et seq., brought by a former employer in the tin and alloys industry against departing, long time at-will employees who chose to remain in the industry by accepting employment on behalf of a competitor.
The plaintiff’s CFAA claims concerned alleged conduct occurring before the defendants resigned their respective employment. Specifically, plaintiff alleged defendants accessed the plaintiff’s computer system and/or network with their employer provided passwords before resigning in order to remove their name from automatically generated e-mails next programmed to be sent to third-parties after the defendants resigned and other matters concerning the terms of pricing for various products plaintiff offered for sale on “accounts” managed by the defendants.
After depositions and discovery, the Firm moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff failed to come forward with material issues of disputed fact on its CFAA claims sufficient to allow a jury to find in its favor at trial on any of the CFAA claims. As argued by the Firm and found by the District Court, plaintiff lacked proof that defendant performed the conduct alleged in the relevant timeframe and, even assuming arguendo it had, because such conduct still failed to state a claim recognized under the CFAA, which is also a criminal statute that sets a minimum threshold of “loss” that a plaintiff must suffer, but instant plaintiff did not, before it may take advantage of any civil remedies.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed with the Firm's arguments granting summary judgment for the Firm's client in a detailed 18-page opinion that cited earlier cases from around the country and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the District’s most recent pronouncement on numerous significant terms and provisions under the CFAA, including the proper standard upon which to review whether an employee’s computer access during his employment was “without authorization” and/or “exceeding authorized access.”
Firm shareholders Mark A. Kearney and Roger J. Harrington, Jr. successfully represented the defendant executive, labeled as plaintiff’s former “General Manager” and top salesman, in this significant victory.
09.23.11 Opinion Granting Summary Judgment
| 
