EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corporation
703 F. App'x 803
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- EarthCam sued OxBlue, individual OxBlue employees (McCormack, Mattern), and former employee Richard Hermann alleging trade-secret misappropriation under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (GTSA) and a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) violation; district court granted summary judgment to defendants and denied reopening forensic discovery; EarthCam appealed.
- Central factual disputes involved: (1) a 2006 “brute force” scraping incident; (2) an OxBlue 3019 data file (when it was transferred); (3) May 2011 access to a Forest City Ratner (FCR) EarthCam account where OxBlue captured screenshots; and (4) emails from Hermann to OxBlue after an August 13, 2008 general release.
- OxBlue argued the contested materials were not trade secrets (public, third‑party, or general business information) and, re CFAA, that OxBlue accessed FCR’s account with FCR’s authorization.
- EarthCam asserted CFAA liability based on alleged IP-masking to evade blocks and on OxBlue’s presumed knowledge of EarthCam’s End‑User License Agreement (EULA) prohibiting screenshot downloads.
- District court concluded EarthCam failed to identify trade secrets as required, that OxBlue’s access to FCR was authorized (no EULA knowledge shown), that Hermann’s post‑release emails did not disclose trade secrets, and denied reopening forensic discovery for lack of excusable neglect and prejudice to defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether information from 2006 brute‑force scraping & OxBlue 3019 file are GTSA trade secrets | Those items are trade secrets misappropriated by OxBlue | Information was public, belonged to third parties, or was non‑secret general business data | Affirmed summary judgment: EarthCam failed to show these were trade secrets; OxBlue’s summary‑judgment arguments were sufficiently raised below |
| Whether EarthCam preserved/was entitled to injunctive relief under GTSA | Injunctive relief was pleaded; district court refused to consider it as newly raised | Defendants characterized the ruling as moot given merits disposition | Moot: affirmed because GTSA claim failed on merits, so injunction unavailable |
| Whether OxBlue violated the CFAA by accessing FCR account (incl. IP‑masking and EULA breach) | OxBlue circumvented IP blocks (unauthorized) and (presumably) knew EULA terms so access exceeded authorization | OxBlue had FCR’s authorization; EULA did not bar credential sharing; no evidence OxBlue knowingly accepted or knew the EULA terms on the access dates | Affirmed summary judgment: EarthCam failed to preserve IP‑masking argument; insufficient evidence OxBlue knowingly violated the EULA; access deemed authorized |
| Whether Hermann disclosed GTSA trade secrets after the 2008 release | Emails after release included confidential, proprietary technical and business information amounting to trade secrets | Post‑release emails contained general knowledge, public or industry‑standard information; release barred pre‑release claims | Affirmed summary judgment: EarthCam’s evidence was conclusory and insufficient to create a genuine dispute that emails contained trade secrets |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen forensic discovery | deCraen withheld/altered 3019 data, produced incomplete images, and used substandard forensic methods requiring reopening | Discovery was protracted; EarthCam delayed depositions and review; reopening would prejudice defendants; no timely Daubert challenge | Affirmed denial: no abuse of discretion; EarthCam’s delay and lack of timely challenge fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment principles—probative evidence requirement)
- Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) (interpretation of "exceeds authorized access" under CFAA)
- Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2016) (conclusory allegations insufficient to withstand summary judgment)
- Camp Creek Hosp. Inns, Inc. v. Sheraton Franchise Corp., 139 F.3d 1396 (11th Cir. 1998) (elements of GTSA claim)
- Roboserve, Ltd. v. Tom’s Foods, Inc., 940 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1991) (public disclosure defeats trade‑secret protection)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (abandonment of unbriefed arguments)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (factors for excusable neglect affecting reopening deadlines)