Amphenol Corp. v. Paul, 591 F. App'x 34

Amphenol sued its former employee Richard Paul (and subpoenaed TE Connectivity) for breach of contract, trade-secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after Paul left for a competitor.
The operative contract was an Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA) and related Shareholder’s Agreements containing confidentiality and non‑compete provisions and an attorney’s‑fees clause tied to a breach by Paul.
District Court granted summary judgment to Paul, denied Amphenol’s fee motion, and entered a discovery order affecting TE; Amphenol appealed those rulings.
Amphenol alleged Paul both used/disclosed confidential information and downloaded electronic material beyond his authorization prior to departure, invoking the CFAA for “exceeding authorized access.”
The District Court found the evidence insufficient to show Paul developed, produced, sold, or distributed competitive products or that he accessed data outside his authorization; it also concluded Amphenol was not entitled to contractually claimed fees because no breach was proved.
The Second Circuit affirmed: summary judgment for Paul, denial of attorney’s fees, and the discovery ruling were all upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract (IPA/non‑compete/confidentiality)	Paul engaged or attempted to engage in competitive product development and disclosed/used Amphenol confidential info	Email traffic shows no evidence Paul engaged in development/production/sale/distribution of competitive products	Affirmed—evidence insufficient to show breach
CFAA claim (exceeding authorized access)	Paul downloaded files unrelated to his job and thus exceeded authorization under the IPA	Amphenol cannot identify specific files outside Paul’s authorization; Paul had full access to strategic info	Affirmed—plaintiff offered only conclusory assertions, insufficient for CFAA liability
Attorney’s fees under the IPA	IPA entitles Amphenol to fees for Paul’s misconduct	Fee clause applies only upon a proven breach by Paul; no breach shown	Affirmed—no contractual entitlement to fees because no breach established
Discovery order re: TE Connectivity	Amphenol sought broader discovery from TE; disputed in camera review and scope	District Court conducted in camera review and limited disclosure; decision within discretion	Affirmed—no abuse of discretion in discovery ruling

Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and inference drawing)
Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority, 711 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff burden at summary judgment)
Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Postlewaite v. McGraw‑Hill, Inc., 411 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2005) (contract interpretation principles)
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for discovery rulings)
In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery)
EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (district court's broad latitude in discovery scope)