Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 957 F. Supp. 2d 610

Background

Jones and King were Dresser-Rand managers who, shortly before resigning in Feb 2010, copied thousands of company files from their issued laptops to external drives; those files were later transferred to Global Power computers.
Wadsworth incorporated Global Power and was its president; Jones and King became employees of Global Power and sent Dresser-Rand documents to Wadsworth, who reviewed/edited some attachments.
Dresser-Rand had written policies and an on‑login legal notice limiting use of company systems and prohibiting unauthorized disclosure, but did not point to technical access restrictions preventing copying.
Dresser-Rand sued under the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)) alleging unauthorized or excess access, plus related state claims; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the CFAA counts.
The court applied the “narrow” view of CFAA authorization (adopted by the Ninth and Fourth Circuits) and analyzed whether defendants accessed protected computers without authorization or exceeded authorized access.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wadsworth "accessed" Dresser‑Rand computers under the CFAA	Wadsworth viewed/edited Dresser‑Rand documents he received and thus is liable because he obtained protected computer information	Wadsworth never accessed Dresser‑Rand computers or network — only viewed attachments on his own system	Court: No CFAA access by Wadsworth; summary judgment for Wadsworth granted
Whether Jones and King “exceeded authorized access” by downloading files to external drives	They misused authorized access by copying files in violation of policies and to benefit Global Power, so they exceeded authorization	They had usernames/passwords and employer-approved access to their laptops and no technical restriction on copying; policies regulate use, not access	Court: Under narrow interpretation, they were authorized to access and copy files while employed; CFAA claim fails; summary judgment for Jones and King granted
Whether King’s statement that he “shit canned” his laptop supports a CFAA claim for deletion	Deleting files before turnover shows exceeding access and destruction of protected data	No forensic evidence of destroyed files and no contractual/technical limit on deletion; deletion alone doesn’t show exceeding access	Court: Insufficient evidence that deletion exceeded authorized access; no CFAA liability on that basis
Whether Global Power is liable under CFAA via agency of Jones/King/Wadsworth	Global Power benefited and is liable because its principals acted for it in accessing/transferring files	No underlying CFAA liability exists for principals, so no basis to impute CFAA liability to Global Power	Court: CFAA claim against Global Power fails because claims against the individuals fail; summary judgment for Global Power granted

Key Cases Cited

P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations The Party and Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428 F.3d 504 (3d Cir.) (elements of §1030(a)(4) laid out)
U.S. v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. en banc) (narrow interpretation: employer use policies cannot convert permitted access into criminally unauthorized access)
WEC Carolina Energy Sols., LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (applies narrow rule to employee copying before resignation)
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (employee authorized to access when employer sanctioned admission)
Int’l Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir.) (broader agency/loyalty‑based view — cited as contrasting approach)
EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir.) (contract/intent‑based limitation on access)
U.S. v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.) (access used to commit fraud can be unauthorized)
U.S. v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.) (policy‑based limitation on access upheld)