Background - Mifflinburg Telegraph (Plaintiff) is a small Pennsylvania print shop; after owner John Stamm died, Heidi and Dale Criswell (employees) negotiated to buy the business but negotiations failed and Heidi formed Wildcat Publications, a competing LLC. - Heidi (primary designer/printer) and others resigned en masse in early February 2014; evidence shows Heidi provided Wildcat reorder cards to Telegraph customers, copied customer lists, accessed Telegraph email after resignation, and deleted files/her computer identity on company Macs. - Wildcat began operating with at least one Ricoh commercial printer taken from the Telegraph; invoices/payments, emails, and lease communications show Heidi arranged printer transfers and billing changes without estate/Telegraph approval. - Plaintiff sued on multiple federal and state claims including CFAA violations, conversion, trade-secret misappropriation (PUTSA), Lanham Act unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and sought damages and fees; Wildcat defaulted earlier, Heidi and Dale proceeded pro se. - The Court granted/denied summary judgment in part: numerous state-law torts and PUTSA claims were entered against Heidi (conversion, misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, interference, computer-forensics and printer damages), denied CFAA relief based on statutory thresholds/authorization issues, declined punitive damages, and awarded plaintiff compensatory damages and full attorneys’ fees under PUTSA for willful misappropriation. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Whether Heidi accessed Telegraph computers "without authorization" under the CFAA | Heidi accessed emails and deleted files after resignation, causing loss; CFAA civil remedies apply | Heidi was authorized while employed; authorization ended only when employer revoked access; some deletions occurred before resignation | Court denied CFAA recovery: access after resignation insufficiently shown to trigger statutory loss over $5,000; aiding-and-abetting CFAA claim fails as a matter of law | | Whether Heidi converted Telegraph property (printer, customer lists, files, orders) | Plaintiff: Heidi took printer, customer lists, orders and deleted files for Wildcat use | Heidi disputed intent/ownership and claimed some payments or arrangements were legitimate | Summary judgment for Plaintiff on conversion against Heidi; damages awarded for printer and forensic costs | | Whether Heidi misappropriated trade secrets/confidential information (PUTSA) and procured confidential info by improper means | Plaintiff: customer lists, job files, pricing and other confidential data are trade secrets/confidential and were taken/used by Heidi | Heidi contested characterization and scope; argued customers were personal relationships and some materials belonged to customers | Summary judgment for Plaintiff on PUTSA and procuring-by-improper-means as to Heidi; award of attorneys’ fees awarded for willful and malicious misappropriation | | Whether Heidi engaged in unfair competition / Lanham Act false designation of origin | Plaintiff: Heidi misled customers into believing Wildcat was Telegraph (reorder cards, emails, "new management") causing loss of goodwill | Heidi argued conduct was not interstate commerce for Lanham Act and that conduct was lawful competition | State-law unfair competition judgment entered for Plaintiff; federal Lanham Act claim denied (insufficient interstate commerce nexus); summary judgment denied on §43(a) only as to federal claim where interstate element inadequate | ### Key Cases Cited Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and movant burden) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard on summary judgment) LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. rule on CFAA "without authorization" and employer rescission of access) Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (limits on Lanham Act misrepresentation claims) Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (trade secret law policy and protection) Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (scope/standing under Lanham Act §43(a) and injury requirement)