Capitol Audio Access, Inc. v. Umemoto
980 F. Supp. 2d 1154
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff publishes a paid, subscriber-only daily online newsletter (The Capitol Morning Report) behind a passcode-protected area; licenses are sold by number of readers.
- The Water District purchased a one-year single-reader license and designated Laura Larramendi as the single authorized reader.
- Larramendi allegedly shared the Water District’s confidential passcode; Defendant Umemoto used that passcode and Larramendi’s email to access daily issues, copied the content, and distributed it to ~100 people from Jan 25 to Aug 3, 2012.
- Plaintiff sued for federal copyright infringement, CFAA, misappropriation of trade secrets (CUTSA), ECPA/SCA, California Penal Code § 502 (CCCDAFA), and trespass to chattels; Umemoto moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court evaluated plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly standards and granted in part and denied in part, allowing Plaintiff 14 days to amend dismissed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement — sufficiency of registration/application | Copyright suit may proceed while application pending under §411(a) | No valid pending registration → claim fails | Denied — cannot show application wholly invalid; claim survives at this stage |
| CFAA — "damage" and "loss" elements | Unauthorized access and disclosure impair data integrity and caused losses (evaded licenses > $5,000) | No allegation of impairment or loss as defined (no interruption of service) | Granted — plaintiff fails to allege CFAA damage or loss as defined |
| CUTSA / trade secrets (passcode) | Passcode is a secret of independent economic value and Plaintiff took reasonable steps to keep it secret | Password/Report are not trade secrets; claim preempted by Copyright Act | Denied — allegations plausibly plead trade secret and misappropriation under CUTSA |
| SCA / ECPA (stored communications) | (Plaintiff alleged unauthorized access to stored content) | Plaintiff is not an ECS or RCS under SCA; claim not covered | Granted — Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege SCA coverage |
| California Penal Code § 502 (CCCDAFA) | Unauthorized access to passcode‑protected site causes damage/loss; statutory private right of action available | Fails for same reasons as CFAA (no damage/loss) and access was not "without permission" | Denied — allegations suffice at complaint stage to state §502 claim |
| Trespass to chattels | Access to password‑protected area is a trespass to Plaintiff’s web property | No interference with possession/use of Plaintiff’s hardware; Intel v. Hamidi standard unmet | Granted — allegations insufficient to show actionable trespass to chattels |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- United States ex rel. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (11(b)(6) pleading standard discussion)
- Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003) (trespass to chattels requires intermeddling or impairment of use)
- Therapeutic Research Faculty v. NBTY, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (data integrity can constitute CFAA damage)