K.F. Jacobsen & Co. v. Gaylor
2013 WL 2318853
D. Or.2013Background
- Jacobsen sues former employee Gaylor for misappropriation of confidential documents and seeks damages and an injunction.
- Gaylor allegedly copied, retained, and disclosed Jacobsen’s trade secret documents, some stored electronically, after leaving the company.
- Gaylor moved to dismiss all five claims; the court advised it would not consider extrinsic evidence and narrowed to two claims: SCA §2701-2712 claim and conversion.
- The court held Jacobsen’s computers are not facilities providing electronic communication services, thus dismissing the SCA claim.
- Jacobsen’s conversion claim is not wholly preempted by Oregon’s Trade Secrets Act because it covers non-trade-secret information; pleaded dominion and control over information.
- Jacobsen sought judicial notice of state court documents; the court granted notice for contents but not for the factual assertions therein.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA claim lies against Jacobsen. | Jacobsen argues its computers provide electronic storage/service. | Gaylor contends SCA covers third-party electronic services, not personal employer equipment. | SCA claim dismissed; computers not ECS, no viable SCA claim. |
| Whether conversion is preempted by the Trade Secrets Act. | Jacobsen argues non-trade-secret data remains actionable. | Gaylor contends conversion based on trade secrets is preempted. | Conversion not preempted for non-trade-secret information; limited preemption for trade-secret misappropriation remains. |
| Whether Jacobsen adequately states a conversion claim. | Gaylor copied and disclosed confidential information inconsistent with Jacobsen’s rights. | Gaylor copied documents within authority and did not interfere with Jacobsen’s control. | Conversion adequately pled; dismissal denied to the extent based on dominion and control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (electronic storage and privacy in third-party facilities)
- In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation, 220 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D. Mass. 2002) (personal computers not ECS under SCA)
- In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (cookies on PCs not SCA electronic storage)
- Quantlab Technologies Ltd. v. Godlevsky, 719 F. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (conversion may lie when possession is inconsistent with owner’s rights)