In considering a motion to dismiss, the pleadings are construed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, and the facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true.
Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Condux International, Inc.,
v. Civil No. 08-4824 ADM/JSM
Joseph M. Sokolowski, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of
Ryan B. Magnus, Zack, Jones and Magnus, Mankato, MN, argued on behalf of Defendant.
On November 6, 2008, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument
on Defendant John Haugum’s (“Haugum”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5]. In its Amended
Complaint [Docket No.7], Plaintiff Condux International, Inc. (“Condux”) asserts a claim under
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, as well as state law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, misappropriation of confidential
information, and unfair competition. For the reasons set forth below, Haugum’s Motion is
Condux, a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Mankato,
Minnesota, manufactures and installs tools and equipment used in the electrical utility, electrical
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 1 of 17
contracting, telecommunications, and cable television industries. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Haugum, a
resident of Mankato, Minnesota, worked for Condux in a variety of positions, most recently as
the Vice President of Global Sales. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. As vice president, Haugum was responsible for
overseeing sales and marketing for the company, and accordingly, was authorized to access
“confidential business information” (such as Condux’s customer lists, pricing and sales data,
profit-margin data, and engineering drawings of Condux’s products) stored on Condux’s
computer system. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. Condux’s employee handbook provides that confidential business
information owned by Condux is not to be misappropriated by employees for their own personal
benefit. Id. ¶ 9.
In November 2007, Haugum exchanged emails with a former Condux employee
indicating that Haugum was considering quitting his job at Condux and starting his own
competing business. Id. ¶10. Condux alleges that in December 2007, Haugum requested that an
employee in Condux’s information technology department send him an electronic list of
Condux’s customers and their contact information. Id. ¶ 11. Also, Condux asserts, Haugum
downloaded over forty engineering drawings from Condux’s computer system in January 2008.
Id. ¶ 12. Soon thereafter, Haugum announced his resignation and left Condux on February 15,
2008. Id. ¶ 13.
Condux asserts that since Hagum’s departure, it has learned that Haugum “attempted to
delete evidence of his download of the engineering drawings” and discovered a document
drafted by Haugum that included a resolution to develop a business to compete with Condux. Id.
¶ 14. Condux alleges further that Haugum has (1) approached one of Condux’s distributors about
doing business directly with Haugum; (2) exchanged emails with a former Condux employee in
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 2 of 17
May 2008 in which the former employee agreed to send Condux’s confidential business
information to Haugum; and (3) “directed” the former employee to delete evidence of those
emails and the accompanying transfer of confidential business information. Id. ¶¶ 15-17, 25-26.
Condux claims that Haugum’s activities in obtaining the confidential business information were
wrongful, that Haugum misappropriated the confidential business information for his own
benefit in competition with Condux, and that Condux has suffered damages as a result. Id. ¶¶
23-25, 28, 31-33.
A. Motion to Dismiss Standard
Haugum argues that Condux’s claim under the CFAA must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted. Consequently, Haugum argues, Condux’s related
state law claims must also be dismissed because, without the CFAA claim, supplemental
jurisdiction to consider the state law claims is lacking.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), courts must
construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and view the facts
alleged in the complaint as true. Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994); Ossman v.
Diana Corp., 825 F. Supp. 870, 879-80 (D. Minn. 1993). Any ambiguities concerning the
sufficiency of the claims must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Ossman, 825 F.
Supp. at 880. “A motion to dismiss should be granted as a practical matter . . . only in the
unusual case in which the plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint
that there is some insuperable bar to relief.” Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th
Cir. 1995). Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings “shall contain a
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 3 of 17
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A pleading
must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
B. CFAA Claim
Count One of the Amended Complaint alleges that Haugum’s activities in obtaining the
confidential business information, using that information to compete with Condux, and
attempting to delete evidence on Condux’s computer system showing that he had obtained the
confidential business information constituted violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-
30. Specifically, Condux claims that Haugum violated susbections (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5)(A)
of § 1030. See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 11] at 6.
The CFAA provides criminal liability for any one of seven prohibited activities, which,
broadly speaking, involve computer hacking. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1)-(7). Although the
CFAA is primarily a criminal statute, § 1030(g) provides:
Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of
this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. A civil action for a
violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves
1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of
Courts have found the CFAA authorizes a civil cause of action for violations of specific
substantive provisions in § 1030(a). Fiber Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Roehrs, 470 F.3d 1150, 1156 (5th
Cir. 2006); see also P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations! The Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC,
428 F.3d 504, 511 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that § 1030(g) authorizes civil causes of action);
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that § 1030(g) creates a
civil remedy for any person who suffers damage or loss due to a violation of the CFAA).
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 4 of 17
As an initial matter, Haugum argues that the second sentence in § 1030(g) expressly
limites civil actions under the CFAA to violations of subsection (a)(5) of § 1030. Therefore,
Haugum maintains, to the extent that Condux’s CFAA claim is based on violations of
subsections (a)(2) and (a)(4) of § 1030, those portions of his claim must be dismissed. In
support, Haugum cites two decisions from this district holding that civil actions under the CFAA
cannot be based on violations of subsections other than subsection (a)(5). See Cenveo Corp. v.
Celumsolutions Software GMBH & Co. KG, 504 F. Supp. 2d 574, 580 (D. Minn. 2007);
McLean v. Mortgage One & Finance Corp., No. Civ. 04-1158, 2004 WL 898440, at *2 (D.
Minn. 2004). Condux responds that Cenveo and McLean were wrongly decided and that “the
CFAA permits civil actions to be brought not only under subsection (a)(5), but also under
subsections (a)(2) and (a)(4).” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 7. While a civil action
must allege conduct that involves one of the five factors in subsection (a)(5)(B), Condux
explains, “nowhere does the statute limit civil actions to only the conduct listed under subsection
(a)(5)(A).” Id. at 8.
Although the Eighth Circuit has yet to address the issue of which violations of the CFAA
may support a civil action, other circuit courts have held that civil actions under the CFAA can
be based on a violation of any of the subsections of § 1030(a). See Fiber Sys., 470 F.3d at 1156-
57 (rejecting the argument that § 1030(g) authorizes civil actions only for violations of
subsection (a)(5) as being “at odds with the language of the statute” and holding that the CFAA
authorizes a civil action for violations of the other subsections of § 1030(a), so long as one of the
five factors in subsection (a)(5) is “involved”); P.C. Yonkers, 428 F.3d at 512-13 (“We do not
read [§ 1030(g)] . . . as limiting relief to claims that are entirely based only on subsection (a)(5),
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 5 of 17
Because there is nothing to suggest that the facts here involve computer information
obtained from a financial institution, card issuer, consumer reporting agency, or department or
agency of the United States, subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) are not applicable.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2).
but, rather, as requiring that claims brought under other [sub]sections must meet, in addition, one
of the five number (a)(5)(B) ‘tests.’”); Theofel, 359 F.3d at 1078 n.5 (holding that § 1030(g)
“applies to any violation of ‘this section’ and, while the offense must involve one of the five
factors in (a)(5)(B), it need not be one of the three offenses in (a)(5)(A)”). The Court recognizes
that these circuit court decisions appear to conflict with the decisions in Cenveo and McLean.
However, the apparent conflict in the case law need not be resolved here. Even assuming that
the CFAA authorizes civil actions for violations of any of the subsections in § 1030(a), Condux
has failed to allege sufficient facts to support its CFAA claim for violations of subsections (a)(2),
(a)(4), and (a)(5)(A).
1. Alleged Violations of Subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5)(A)(ii) and (iii)
A violation of subsection (a)(2)(C)
2 occurs when a person intentionally accesses a
computer without authorization or in excess of authorized access and thereby obtains
information from a “protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign
communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C). Subsection (a)(4) is violated if a person
knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization or in
excess of authorized access and by means of such conduct obtains anything of value. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1030(a)(4). And a violation of subsection (a)(5)(A) occurs when a person intentionally
accesses a protected computer without authorization and as a result of such conduct causes or
recklessly causes damage. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii). Thus, violations of subsections
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 6 of 17
(a)(2) and (a)(4) require allegations that Haugum accessed Condux’s computers either
authorization or in excess of authorized access
, while violations of subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii) and
(iii) require an allegation that Haugum accessed a protected computer
Haugum argues his position as vice president “authorized” him to access Condux’s
computer system and specifically to access the confidential business information and, therefore,
Condux is unable to allege that he acted without authorization or in excess of authorized access.
Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] at 6-7. Condux does not dispute that
Haugum was permitted to access the confidential business information; instead, Condux
contends that Haugum was without authorization or exceeded his authorized access because he
was “never authorized . . . to access its computer system to misappropriate confidential business
information for his personal competitive use.” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 12. In
other words, Haugum was without authorization or exceeded his authorized access because of
his wrongful intended use of the confidential business information.
The dispute regarding the proper interpretation of the terms “without authorization” and
“exceeds authorized access” has been addressed by courts in other jurisdictions, and the courts
have split on the question of whether an employee with an improper purpose may be held civilly
liable under the CFAA for accessing computer information that he is otherwise permitted to
access within the scope of his employment. Several courts (hereinafter referred to as the
“Shurgard/Citrin line of cases”) have agreed with Condux and have concluded that an employee
may act “without authorization” or “in excess of authorized access” when he accesses
confidential or proprietary business information from his employer’s computers that he has
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 7 of 17
See, e.g., Int’l Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 (7th Cir. 2006); EF
Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 582-84 (1st Cir. 2001); ViChip Corp. v.
Lee, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Pac. Aerospace & Elec., Inc. v. Taylor, 295
F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1195-97 (E.D. Wash. 2003); Shurgard Storage Ctrs., Inc. v. Safeguard Self
Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1125 (W.D. Wash. 2000); see also Calyon v. Mizuho Sec.
USA, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 2241, 2007 WL 2618658, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2007); Pharmerica,
Inc. v. Arledge, No. 8:07-cv-486-T-26MAP, 2007 WL 865510, at *7-8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21,
2007); Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Sawyer, No. 3:06CV0456, 2006 WL 1638537, at *20-21
(M.D. Tenn. June 6, 2006); Nilfisk-Advance, Inc. v. Mitchell, No. 05-5179, 2006 WL 827073, at
*2 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 28, 2006); HUB Group, Inc. v. Clancy, No. 05-2046, 2006 WL 208684, at
*3-4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2006).
See, e.g., Black & Decker (US), Inc. v. Smith, 568 F. Supp. 2d 929, 933 (W.D. Tenn.
2008); Shamrock Foods Co. v. Gast, 535 F. Supp. 2d 962, 964 (D. Ariz. 2008); Diamond Power
Int’l, Inc. v. Davidson, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1341-43 (N.D. Ga. 2007); B&B Microscopes v.
Armogida, 532 F. Supp. 2d 744, 758 (W.D. Pa. 2007); Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479, 498-99 (D. Md. 2005); SecureInfo Corp. v.
Telos Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 593,608-10 (E.D. Va. 2005); In re America Online, Inc. Version
5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1370-71 (S.D. Fla. 2001); see also Brett Senior &
Assocs., P.C. v. Fitzgerald, No. 06-1412, 2007 WL 2043377, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007);
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Speed, No. 6:05-CV-1580-ORL-31, 2006 WL 2683058, at *5 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 1, 2006).
permission to access but then uses that information in a manner that is inconsistent with the
employer’s interests or in violation of contractual obligations or fiduciary duties.
3 Other courts
(hereinafter referred to as the “Lockheed line of cases”) have adopted a much narrower
interpretation and have held that the CFAA is implicated only by the unauthorized access,
obtainment, or alteration of information, not the misuse or misappropriation of information
obtained with permission.
4 For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the
Lockheed line of cases reflects a more correct interpretation of the meaning of the terms
“without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access.”
As with any question of statutory interpretation, a court’s starting point is the statute’s
plain language. Watson v. Ray, 192 F.3d 1153, 1155 (8th Cir. 1999). The CFAA defines
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 8 of 17
“exceeds authorized access” as “access[ing] a computer with authorization and [using] such
access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain
or alter.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6). The plain language contemplates persons who “go beyond the
permitted access granted to them—typically insiders exceeding whatever access is permitted to
them.” Lockheed Martin, 2006 WL 2683058, at * 5; see also Black & Decker, 568 F. Supp. 2d
at 935. By contrast, “without authorization” is not defined in the CFAA, but “‘authorization’ is
commonly understood as ‘[t]he act of conferring authority; permission.’” Lockheed Martin, 2006
WL 2683058, at * 5 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary 89 (1976)); see also Shamrock
Foods, 535 F. Supp. 2d at 965. “[W]ithout authorization” refers to persons “below authorization,
meaning those having no permission to access whatsoever.” Lockheed Martin, 2006 WL
2683058, at * 5.
Relying on these understandings of the plain meaning of “exceeds authorized access” and
“without authorization,” the court in Diamond Power explained that both of the terms depend not
on the “unauthorized
use of information, but rather upon the . . . unauthorized use of access.”
540 F. Supp. 2d at 1343 (emphasis added). The interpretation advanced by Condux and
articulated in the Shurgard/Citrin line of cases incorrectly focuses on what a defendant did with
the information after he accessed it (use of information), rather than on the appropriate question
of whether he was permitted to access the information in the first place (use of access). As one
court explained, “this interpretation reads section (a)(4) as if it said ‘exceeds authorized use’
instead of ‘exceeds authorized access.’” Brett Senior, 2007 WL 2043377, at *4. Had Congress
intended to target how a person makes use of information, it would have explicitly provided
language to that effect. Indeed, one need look no further than to another subsection of § 1030 to
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 9 of 17
see such explicit language that targets a person’s use of information. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1)
(prohibiting the access without authorization or in excess of authorized access and subsequent
“communicat[ion], deliver[y], or transmi[ssion]” of certain information.) Thus,“the plain
language of [subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5)(A)(ii) and (iii)] target ‘unauthorized
procurement or alteration of information, not its misuse or misappropriation.’” Shamrock Foods,
535 F. Supp. 2d at 965 (quoting Brett Senior, 2007 WL 2043377, at *3).
The legislative history of the CFAA supports this interpretation, which focuses on the
propriety of the access of information rather than on the propriety of the use of information. The
1984 House Committee explained that the conduct prohibited by the CFAA is “analogous to that
of ‘breaking and entering’ rather than using a computer . . . in committing the offense.” H.R.
Rep. No. 98-894, at 20 (1984). In 1986, Congress amended the CFAA to substitute the term
“exceeds authorized access” for the term “or having accessed a computer with authorization,
uses the opportunity such access provides for purposes to which such authorization does not
extend.” S. Rep. No. 99-342, at 9. The stated intent of the amendment was to “eliminate
coverage for authorized access that aims at ‘purposes to which such authorization does not
extend,’” and to thereby “remove from the sweep of the statute one of the murkier grounds of
liability, under which a [person’s] access to computerized data might be legitimate in some
circumstances, but criminal in other (not clearly distinguishable) circumstances that might be
held to exceed his authorization.’” S. Rep. No. 99-432, at 21.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Lockheed line of cases that principles of statutory
construction require the adoption of a narrow view of the CFAA. When a court is confronted
with two rational readings of a criminal statute, it is required to construe the statute in favor of
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 10 of 17
the defendant. See United States v. Santos, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). This
rule of lenity applies to civil statutes that have criminal applications because courts are required
to interpret such statutes consistently, regardless of whether the court encounters the statute in a
criminal or noncriminal context. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 380 (2005). The CFAA has
both civil and criminal applications and given the two proposed readings of the statute—(1) the
broad interpretation of “without authorization” and “exceeds authorization” articulated in the
Shurgard/Citrin line of cases and (2) the narrower interpretation advanced by the Lockheed line
of cases—the rule of lenity requires the Court to favor the narrower interpretation.
Finally, but of equal importance, the interpretation adopted by the Shurgard/Citrin line of
cases would create a federal cause of action for an employer whenever an employee accesses
information on the company computer with intentions of using that information in a manner
adverse to the employer’s interests or in violation of a duty of loyalty. See Citrin, 440 F.3d at
420-21. “The Court declines the invitation to open the doorway to federal court so expansively
when this reach is not apparent from the plain language of the CFAA.” Shamrock Foods, 535 F.
Supp. 2d at 967; see also Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 24-25 (2000) (rejecting a
“sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by
There is no dispute that Haugum, as Vice President of Global Sales, was permitted to
access Condux’s computers. Therefore, he was not “without authorization” when he accessed
the computers. Additionally, because he was permitted to access the specific confidential
business information, he did not “exceed authorized access.” In Werner-Masuda, the court noted
that “the gravamen of [the] complaint is not so much that [the defendant] accessed the
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 11 of 17
information . . ., but rather what she did with the information once she obtained it. The . . .
CFAA, however, do[es] not prohibit the unauthorized disclosure or use of information, but rather
unauthorized access.” 390 F. Supp. 2d at 499. Similarly, the court in Black & Decker
Clearly, the Plaintiff objects not to [the] accessing of the information,
but to [the] later misuse thereof. Thus, while the Complaint includes
claims that the Defendant breached both the Employee Access
Agreement and the confidentiality agreements by allegedly disclosing
. . . trade secrets and proprietary information, . . . no facts alleged
indicate that Smith exceeded the access he was granted by the
Plaintiff or that he accessed the data without authorization.
568 F. Supp. 2d at 936. Here too, the conduct at the heart of the dispute is not the access of the
confidential business information but rather the alleged subsequent misuse or misappropriation
of that information. Such allegations, however, are not sufficient to state a claim for violations
of subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(5)(ii) or (iii).
2. Alleged Violations of subsections (a)(5)(A)(i)
A violation of subsection (a)(5)(A) also occurs when a person knowingly causes the
transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result, intentionally causes
damage without authorization to a protected computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i). Unlike
subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5)(ii) and (iii), which are all predicated on unauthorized
, a violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) is predicated on unauthorized damage. Haugum
argues that Condux has not and cannot allege such damage, as that term is defined by the CFAA,
and, therefore, Condux cannot state a claim based on a violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i).
The CFAA defines the term “damage” as meaning “any impairment to the integrity or
availability of data, a program, a system, or information.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8). Haugum
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 12 of 17
contends that there have been no allegations of such impairment to the integrity or availability of
data, a program, a system, or information. Further, he claims, “it appears that [Condux] always
was able to access the information alleged to have been misappropriated by [Haugum].” Def.’s
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] at 7-8. In response, Condux relies on cases
holding that allegations of an employee’s downloading or copying of confidential business
information from an employer’s secure computer system is sufficient to allege impairment to the
integrity of data or information. See, e.g., Shurgard, 119 F. Supp. 2d at 1126-27 (concluding that
allegations of infiltrating a computer network and gathering and disseminating confidential
information impaired the integrity of data even though no data was physically changed or
erased); Pac. Aerospace, 295 F. Supp. 2d at 1195-97 (concluding that “caselaw supports an
employer’s use of the CFAA’s civil remedies to sue [its] former employees . . . who seek a
competitive edge through wrongful use of information [obtained] from the former employer’s
Not surprisingly considering the previously discussed conflicts regarding the
interpretation and application of the CFAA, there is disagreement among courts on whether the
mere unauthorized copying, downloading, or emailing of confidential or proprietary information
is sufficient to allege impairment of the integrity of data, a system, or information. In Garelli
Wong & Assocs., Inc. v. Nichols, the court, disagreeing with Shurgard and Pac. Aerospace, held
that the misappropriation of trade secrets through the use of a computer, by itself, is insufficient
to allege impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a system, or information. 551 F.
Supp. 2d 704, 709-710 (N.D. Ill. 2008); see also Sam’s Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Hartig, No. 08
C 570, 2008 WL 4394962, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2008) (finding the reasoning in Garelli
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 13 of 17
Wong persuasive and declining to follow Shurgard); Lockheed Martin, 2006 WL 2683058, at *3,
8 (concluding that “[t]he copying of information from a computer onto a CD or PDA is a
relatively common function that typically does not, by itself, cause permanent deletion of the
original computer files,”and thus, does not, by itself, constitute “damage” under the CFAA). In
reaching this conclusion, the Garelli Wong court relied heavily on an unpublished case
discussing the meaning of the term “integrity.” See 551 F. Supp. 2d at 709 (citing Resdev, LLC
v. Lot Builders Ass’n, Inc., No. 6:04-CV-1374, 2005 WL 1924743 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2005).
In Resdev, the court explained:
Another thing that detracts from Shurgard is its heavy reliance on
legislative history. For instance, based on legislative history,
Shurgard adopted an unusual and extraordinary interpretation of the
word “integrity” within the CFAA’s definition of “damage” . . . . It
found “integrity” to contemplate the loss of a trade secret’s
exclusivity value. “Integrity,” however, ordinarily means
“wholeness” or “soundness,” Oxford English Reference Dictionary
731 (Rev. 2d ed. 2002), and contemplates, in this context, some
diminution in the completeness or useability of data or information
on a computer system. This Court finds no meaningful ambiguity
that might weigh in favor of relying on legislative history . . . .
2005 WL 1924743, at *5 n.3 (quotations omitted); see also Worldspan, L.P. v. Orbitz, LLC, No.
05 C 5386, 2006 WL 1069128, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2006) (agreeing with Resdev regarding
the ordinary meaning of “damage” and “integrity” and rejecting the argument that “the mere
‘taking of information’ constitutes ‘damage’ under the CFAA”).
The Court finds the reasoning in Garelli Wong and Resdev persuasive. The “damage”
contemplated by subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) requires some “diminution in the completeness or
useability of data or information on a computer system.” Resdev, 2005 WL 1924743, at *5 n.3.
Here, there have been no allegations that Haugum diminished the “completeness or useability”
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 14 of 17
of the computer data or information he obtained. Haugum’s alleged activities may well have
compromised or diminished the confidentiality, exclusivity, or secrecy of the proprietary
information that had been expressed in the form of computer data. But the plain language of the
statute requires some alteration of or diminution to the integrity, stability, or accessibility of the
computer data itself. In other words, the complained of activity must have an effect on the
binary coding used to create, store, and access computerized representations of information.
Condux also claims that it has sufficiently pleaded damage by its allegation that “[b]y
deleting or attempting to delete evidence that he misappropriated Condux’s Confidential
Business Information, Haugum impaired both the integrity and availability of that data and
information.” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 15. An allegation that Haugum did in
fact delete computer data would perhaps be sufficient under the above interpretation of
“damage.” However, a review of Condux’s Amended Complaint reveals no allegation of actual
deletion. Condux repeatedly alleges that Haugum
attempted to delete evidence of his computer
activities, but at no time does Condux allege that Haugum accomplished a deletion of anything.
See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32. In its brief submitted in opposition to Haugum’s
motion, Condux explains: “It appears that Haugum deleted evidence of his wrongful conduct, but
evidence of the deletion and what Haugum was attempting to delete remained on the computer
system.” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 15 n.7. To the extent that this could be
viewed as an allegation that Haugum succeeding in deleting data (rather than merely attempting
to do so), there is no similar allegation in the Amended Complaint, which refers only to
attempted deletions. Accordingly, the allegation in the briefing may not be considered in
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 15 of 17
Even if the allegation had been properly raised, it is unclear whether it would be
sufficient to show “damage.” See Lockheed Martin, 2006 WL 2683058, at *8 (suggesting that
an allegation of “
permanent deletion or removal” is necessary to satisfy the CFAA’s definition
of “damage”) (emphasis added).
deciding a Rule 12 motion to dismiss.
5 See Enervations, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 380
F.3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2004).
In sum, Condux is unable to allege that Haugum was “without authorization” or that he
“exceeded authorized access,” and, thus, the claim for violations of §§ 1030(a)(2), (a)(4), and
(a)(5)(ii) and (iii) fail. And because there is no allegation of the “damage” contemplated by the
CFAA, the claim for a violation of § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) likewise fails. Condux’s allegations that
Haugum acted wrongfully in accessing the confidential business information to later use for his
own benefit may very well support other claims; indeed, they are the basis for the state law
claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, misappropriation of confidential business
information, breach of fiduciary duties, and unfair competition. But they are not allegations that
will support a CFAA claim.
C. State Law Claims
The sole jurisdictional basis asserted for Counts Two through Five is 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a), which permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are
part of the same case or controversy as claims that fall within its original jurisdiction. See Am.
Compl. ¶ 3; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 18-19. When a district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may in its discretion decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibson
v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006). Having dismissed Count One (the CFAA claim),
the sole count within the Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 16 of 17
supplemental jurisdiction over Condux’s state law claims and dismisses those claims without
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
1. Defendant John Haugum’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5] is
2. Count One of Plaintiff Condux International, Inc.’s Amended Complaint [Docket
No. 7] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
3. Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five of the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 7]
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 15, 2008.
Case 0:08-cv-04824-ADM-JSM Document 17 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 17 of 17