%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
115.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz
-114.766 -40 Td
1.9 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
66.136 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-66.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(LLC,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
80.988 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.512 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
135.57 -6.6 Td
(No. 11-1201) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-36.45 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -10.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLIE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, a/k/a Mike; E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MILY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELLEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -18 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-6.87 -13.2 Td
(for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.) Tj
12.078 -13.2 Td
(Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.) Tj
51.39 -13.2 Td
(\(0:10-cv-02775-CMC\)) Tj
-.468 -26.2 Td
(Argued: April 2, 2012) Tj
-2.334 -26.4 Td
(Decided: July 26, 2012) Tj
-64.788 -26.2 Td
(Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and) Tj
34.626 -13.2 Td
(HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-62.376 -51.2 Td
(Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opin-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(ion, in which Judge Shedd and Senior Judge Hamilton joined.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -83.95 m 183.8 -83.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -146.3 m 186.6 -91.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -217.8 m 186.6 -163.3 l s
.9 w 0 -224.75 m 183.3 -224.75 l s
.5 w 0 -407.75 m 300 -407.75 l s
.5 w 0 -472.15 m 300 -472.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
2716
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -28.4 Td
3.05 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Kirsten Elena Small, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.83 Tw
(Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James William) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.9 Tw
(Bradford, Jr., JIM BRADFORD LAW FIRM, LLC, York,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.9 Tw
(South Carolina; Brian S. McCoy, MCCOY LAW FIRM,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.91 Tw
(LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -14.3 Td
1.71 Tw
(Mark Gordon, Anthony J. Basinski, PIETRAGALLO GOR-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.6 Tw
(DON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP, Pittsburgh,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.21 Tw
(Pennsylvania; Angus H. Macaulay, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.28 Tw
(Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel H. Har-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(shaw, BRICE LAW FIRM, LLC, York, South Carolina, for) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appellees.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -47.8 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -28.3 Td
(FLOYD, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -28.3 Td
1.84 Tw
(In April 2010, Mike Miller resigned from his position as) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
3.1 Tw
(Project Director for WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc.) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.27 Tw
(\(WEC\). Twenty days later, he made a presentation to a poten-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.71 Tw
(tial WEC customer on behalf of WEC's competitor, Arc) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.3 Tw
(Energy Services, Inc. \(Arc\). The customer ultimately chose to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.91 Tw
(do business with Arc. WEC contends that before resigning,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.18 Tw
(Miller, acting at Arc's direction, downloaded WEC's propri-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.45 Tw
(etary information and used it in making the presentation.) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1 Tw
(Thus, it sued Miller, his assistant Emily Kelley, and Arc for,) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.62 Tw
(among other things, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Act \(CFAA\), 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1030. ) Tj
12 -28.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(The district court dismissed WEC's CFAA claim, holding) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
.85 Tw
(that the CFAA provides no relief for Appellees' alleged con-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(duct. We agree and therefore affirm. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -206.65 m 300 -206.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
2893
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
146.502 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(I.) Tj
-2.334 -26.4 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.3 Td
2.1 Tw
(In 1984, Congress initiated a campaign against computer) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.33 Tw
(crime by passing the Counterfeit Access Device and Com-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(puter Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.11 Tw
(Stat. 2190. Shortly thereafter, in 1986, it expanded the Act) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.43 Tw
(with a revised version, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.93 Tw
(1986, Pub. L. No. 99-474, 100 Stat. 1213. Today, the CFAA) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(remains primarily a criminal statute designed to combat hack-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.62 Tw
(ing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 562 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.11 Tw
(630, 645 \(4th Cir. 2009\). Nevertheless, it permits a private) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.61 Tw
(party "who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.32 Tw
([the statute]" to bring a civil action "to obtain compensatory) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.43 Tw
(damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief." 18) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.44 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.44 Tw
(1030\(g\). Notably, although proof of at least one of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.58 Tw
(five additional factors is necessary to maintain a civil action,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(a violation of any of the statute's provisions exposes the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(offender to both civil and criminal liability. ) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
.14 Tw
(Among other things, the CFAA renders liable a person who) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.85 Tw
(\(1\) "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.34 Tw
(or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . infor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
6.44 Tw
(mation from any protected computer," in violation of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.01 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.01 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\); \(2\) "knowingly and with intent to defraud,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.5 Tw
(accesses a protected computer without authorization, or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct fur-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.34 Tw
(thers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value," in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.51 Tw
(violation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.51 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(4\); or \(3\) "intentionally accesses a pro-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.52 Tw
(tected computer without authorization, and as a result of such) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(conduct, recklessly causes damage[,] or . . . causes damage) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.97 Tw
(and loss," in violation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.97 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(5\)\(B\)-\(C\). Here, WEC) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.59 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Maintenance of a civil action requires one of the factors outlined in) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.15 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.15 Tw
(1030\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\(i\)\(I\)-\(V\). Here, WEC alleges that its aggregate losses as) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.61 Tw
(a result of Appellees' conduct were "at least $5,000 in value" during a) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(one-year period, which satisfies ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(1030\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\(i\)\(I\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
3908
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(alleges that Miller, Kelley, and Arc violated all three of these) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(provisions.) Tj
144.498 -25.3 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -25.3 Td
.47 Tw
(WEC and Arc are competitors, providing specialized weld-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
3.12 Tw
(ing and related services to the power generation industry.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.25 Tw
(Both companies are incorporated in South Carolina and main-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(tain their principal places of business in York County, South) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.81 Tw
(Carolina. Prior to April 30, 2010, WEC employed Mike Mil-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.17 Tw
(ler as a Project Director and Emily Kelley as his assistant.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(Both individuals now work for Arc. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.71 Tw
(When Miller worked for WEC, the company provided him) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.44 Tw
(with a laptop computer and cell phone, and authorized his) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.05 Tw
(access to the company's intranet and computer servers.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.35 Tw
(According to WEC's complaint, "Miller had access to numer-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.43 Tw
(ous confidential and trade secret documents stored on . . .) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.5 Tw
(computer servers, including pricing terms, pending projects[,]) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.31 Tw
(and the technical capabilities of WEC." To protect its confi-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.57 Tw
(dential information and trade secrets, WEC instituted policies) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.61 Tw
(that prohibited using the information without authorization or) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.36 Tw
(downloading it to a personal computer. These policies did not) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.67 Tw
(restrict Miller's authorization to access the information, how-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(ever.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
3.95 Tw
(On April 30, 2010, Miller resigned from WEC. WEC) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.08 Tw
(alleges that prior to resigning, Miller, at Arc's direction, "ei-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.4 Tw
(ther by himself or by his assistant, Kelley, downloaded a sub-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
5.63 Tw
(stantial number of WEC's confidential documents" and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.28 Tw
(emailed them to his personal e-mail address. WEC also) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.71 Tw
(alleges that Miller and Kelley downloaded confidential infor-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.87 Tw
(mation to a personal computer. Twenty days after leaving) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.24 Tw
(WEC, Miller reportedly used the downloaded information to) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.33 Tw
(make a presentation on behalf of Arc to a potential WEC cus-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(tomer. ) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
4.1 Tw
(The customer ultimately awarded two projects to Arc.) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
4.11 Tw
(WEC contends that as a result of Miller's and Kelley's) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3242
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.12 Tw
0 Tc
(actions, it "has suffered and will continue to suffer impair-) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.33 Tw
(ment to the integrity of its data, programs, systems or infor-) Tj
0 -14 Td
2.66 Tw
(mation, including economic damages, and loss aggregating) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.2 Tw
(substantially more than $5,000 during a one-year period.") Tj
12 -27.7 Td
.33 Tw
(In October 2010, WEC sued Miller, Kelley, and Arc, alleg-) Tj
-12 -14 Td
3 Tw
(ing nine state-law causes of action and a violation of the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.91 Tw
(CFAA. Regarding its CFAA claim, WEC averred that Miller) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.63 Tw
(and Kelley violated the Act because "[u]nder WEC's policies) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.75 Tw
(they were not permitted to download confidential and propri-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.42 Tw
(etary information to a personal computer." Thus, by doing so,) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.24 Tw
(they "breache[d] their fiduciary duties to WEC" and via that) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.44 Tw
(breach, they either \(1\) lost all authorization to access the con-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
4.71 Tw
(fidential information or \(2\) exceeded their authorization.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.53 Tw
(WEC sought to hold Arc liable because it claimed that Miller) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(and Kelley undertook this conduct as Arc's agents. ) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
.66 Tw
(Appellees moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
.22 Tw
(Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\), and the district court held that WEC) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(failed to state a claim for which the CFAA provided relief:) Tj
22 -27.6 Td
2.95 Tw
([I]n this case, WEC's company policies regulated) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
2.75 Tw
(use) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of information not access to that information.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.62 Tw
(Thus, even if Miller and Kelley's purpose in access-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.94 Tw
(ing the information was contrary to company poli-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.45 Tw
(cies regulating use, it would not establish a violation) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.9 Tw
(of company policies relevant to access and, conse-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.04 Tw
(quently, would not support liability under the CFAA.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -27.6 Td
.48 Tw
(WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 0:10-cv-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.73 Tw
(2775-CMC, 2011 WL 379458, at *5 \(D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011\).) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.33 Tw
(Thus, it dismissed the CFAA claim and declined to exercise) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -27.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.66 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(WEC has since moved forward with these claims in South Carolina) Tj
-10 -11.8 Td
1 Tw
(state court. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -465.25 m 300 -465.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
3455
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.504 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
-132.504 -26 Td
1 Tw
(We review de novo a district court's dismissal pursuant to) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.07 Tw
(Rule 12\(b\)\(6\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 678 F.3d) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(271, 274 \(4th Cir. 2012\), accepting as true all factual allega-) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(tions contained in the complaint, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Erickson v. Pardus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(89, 94 \(2007\)\(per curiam\).) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
4.6 Tw
(WEC alleges that Appellees violated ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.6 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\),) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(\(a\)\(4\), \(a\)\(5\)\(B\), and \(a\)\(5\)\(C\), each of which require that a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(party either access a computer "without authorization" or "ex-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(ceed[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.63 Tw
(] authorized access." The district court held that Appel-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(lees' alleged conductthe violation of policies regarding the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(use and downloading of confidential informationdid not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(contravene any of these provisions. Accordingly, the crux of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(the issue presented here is the scope of "without authoriza-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(tion" and "exceeds authorized access." We particularly exam-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.41 Tw
(ine whether these terms extend to violations of policies) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(regarding the use of a computer or information on a computer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(to which a defendant otherwise has access. Before delving) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(into statutory analysis, however, we briefly review the per-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(spectives of our sister circuits. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2 Tw
(In short, two schools of thought exist. The first, promul-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(gated by the Seventh Circuit and advanced by WEC here,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(holds that when an employee accesses a computer or informa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(tion on a computer to further interests that are adverse to his) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(employer, he violates his duty of loyalty, thereby terminating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(his agency relationship and losing any authority he has to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(access the computer or any information on it. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Int'l Airport) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.86 Tw
(Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 \(7th Cir. 2006\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(Thus, for example, the Seventh Circuit held that an employee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(who erased crucial data on his company laptop prior to turn-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(ing it in at the end of his employment violated the CFAA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(at 419-21. It reasoned that his "breach of his duty of loyalty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(terminated his agency relationship . . . and with it his author-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
3629
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.11 Tw
0 Tc
(ity to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(had been that relationship." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 420-21. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.37 Tw
(The second, articulated by the Ninth Circuit and followed) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.21 Tw
(by the district court here, interprets "without authorization") Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(and "exceeds authorized access" literally and narrowly, limit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(ing the terms' application to situations where an individual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(accesses a computer or information on a computer without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(permission. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d 854, 863) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 2012\) \(en banc\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 581) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(F.3d 1127, 1134-35 \(9th Cir. 2009\). Thus, in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Ninth) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6 Tw
(Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the defendant's co-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(conspirators, a group of employees at an executive search) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(firm, did not violate the CFAA when they retrieved confiden-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(tial information via their company user accounts and trans-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(ferred it to the defendant, a competitor and former employee.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d at 856, 864. It reasoned that the CFAA fails) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(to provide a remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(violation of a use policy where authorization has not been) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(rescinded. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 863-64. As we explain below, we agree with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(this latter view.) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(As with any issue of statutory interpretation, we focus on) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(the plain language of the statute, seeking "first and foremost) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(. . . to implement congressional intent." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(Abdelshafi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 592 F.3d 602, 607 \(4th Cir. 2010\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(States v. Passaro) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 577 F.3d 207, 213 \(4th Cir. 2009\)\) \(internal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(quotation marks omitted\). Thus, "`we give the terms [of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.6 Tw
(statute] their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.61 Tw
(absent an indication [that] Congress intended' the statute's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(language `to bear some different import.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ste-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(phens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 565 F.3d 131, 137 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2009\)\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.03 Tw
(Where, as here, our analysis involves a statute whose provi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(sions have both civil and criminal application, our task merits) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
3854
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1 Tw
0 Tc
(special attention because our interpretation applies uniformly) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.5 Tw
(in both contexts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Leocal v. Ashcroft) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n.8) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.56 Tw
(\(2004\). Thus, we follow "the canon of strict construction of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.71 Tw
(criminal statutes, or rule of lenity." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Lanier) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.57 Tw
(520 U.S. 259, 266 \(1997\). In other words, in the interest of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.31 Tw
(providing fair warning "of what the law intends to do if a cer-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.04 Tw
(tain line is passed," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.06 Tw
(munities for a Great Or.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 687, 704 n.18 \(1995\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.51 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Bass) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 404 U.S. 336, 348 \(1971\)\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(\(internal quotation marks omitted\), we will construe this crim-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(inal statute strictly and avoid interpretations not "clearly war-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.17 Tw
(ranted by the text," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Crandon v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 U.S. 152,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(160 \(1990\).) Tj
145.5 -26.9 Td
(1.) Tj
-133.5 -26.9 Td
2.08 Tw
(The CFAA is concerned with the unauthorized access of) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.35 Tw
(protected computers. Thus, we note at the outset that "access") Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.51 Tw
(means "[t]o obtain, acquire," or "[t]o gain admission to.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
4.75 Tw
(Oxford English Dictionary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(3d ed. 2011; online version) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.02 Tw
(2012\). Moreover, per the CFAA, a "computer" is a high-speed) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.88 Tw
(processing device "and includes any data storage facility or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.18 Tw
(communications facility directly related to or operating in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.23 Tw
(conjunction with such device." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.23 Tw
(1030\(e\)\(1\). A computer) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(becomes a "protected computer" when it "is used in or affect-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ing interstate or foreign commerce." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1030\(e\)\(2\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
3.31 Tw
(With respect to the phrase, "without authorization," the) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
4.48 Tw
(CFAA does not define "authorization." Nevertheless, the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.76 Tw
(Oxford English Dictionary defines "authorization" as "formal) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.05 Tw
(warrant, or sanction." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Oxford English Dictionary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(2d ed.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.34 Tw
(1989; online version 2012\). Regarding the phrase "exceeds) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.16 Tw
(authorized access," the CFAA defines it as follows: "to access) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.5 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.28 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Neither party disputes that the computers involved in this case are) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
("protected computers." ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
3952
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.67 Tw
0 Tc
(or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(entitled so to obtain or alter." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1030\(e\)\(6\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.37 Tw
(Recognizing that the distinction between these terms is) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(arguably minute, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Citrin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 440 F.3d at 420, we nevertheless) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.06 Tw
(conclude based on the "ordinary, contemporary, common) Tj
0 -13 Td
.01 Tw
(meaning," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Perrin v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 444 U.S. 37, 42 \(1979\),) Tj
0 -13 Td
.76 Tw
(of "authorization," that an employee is authorized to access a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(computer when his employer approves or sanctions his admis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(sion to that computer. Thus, he accesses a computer "without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(authorization" when he gains admission to a computer with-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(out approval. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Brekka) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 581 F.3d at 1133. Similarly, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.65 Tw
(conclude that an employee "exceeds authorized access" when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(he has approval to access a computer, but uses his access to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(obtain or alter information that falls outside the bounds of his) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(approved access. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Notably, neither of these definitions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(extends to the improper ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(use) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of information validly accessed.) Tj
145.5 -26 Td
1.2 Tw
(2.) Tj
-133.5 -26 Td
.33 Tw
(WEC presses instead an ostensibly plain-language interpre-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(tation articulated in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( panel decision, which was sub-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(sequently reversed en banc. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 642) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.69 Tw
(F.3d 781 \(9th Cir. 2011\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(rev'd en banc) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d 854 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(Cir. 2012\). In that decision, the panel fixated on the word "so") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.51 Tw
(in the definition of "exceeds authorized access." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.37 Tw
(785. The panel declared that, in context, this conjunction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(means "in a manner or way that is indicated or suggested." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 2159 \(Philip) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(Babcock Gove ed., 2002\)\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(Thus, it found that an employee "exceed[s] [his] authorized) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(access" if he uses such access "to obtain or alter information) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
([on] the computer that [he] is not entitled [in that manner] to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(obtain or alter." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 785-86. \(third alteration in original\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.2 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.2 Tw
(1030\(e\)\(6\)\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(Armed with this interpretation, the court held that the defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.18 Tw
(dant's co-conspirators "exceed[ed] their authorized access") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(because although they had permission to access the propri-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
4256
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.21 Tw
0 Tc
(etary information that they transferred to the defendant, they) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(violated the company's policy regarding the use and disclo-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.17 Tw
(sure of that information. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 787-89. The court reasoned) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(that the co-conspirators' violation of the use and disclosure) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.83 Tw
(policy constituted access "in a manner" to which they were) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(not entitled. Thus, they violated the CFAA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.81 Tw
(As an initial manner, we believe the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( panel's conclu-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(sion is a non sequitur. To us, defining "so" as "in that manner") Tj
0 -13 Td
2.78 Tw
(only elucidates our earlier conclusion that "exceeds autho-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.87 Tw
(rized access" refers to obtaining or altering information) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(beyond the limits of the employee's authorized access. It does) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(not address the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(use) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of information after access. Indeed, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(Ninth Circuit indicated as much in its en banc reversal, when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(it declined to hold that the interpretation of "so" as "in that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(manner" necessarily means employees can be liable for use-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(policy violations. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 676 F.3d at 857. Instead, the court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(offered hypotheticals illustrating how the panel's interpreta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(tion of "so" referred to the means of obtaining information,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.63 Tw
(not the use of information. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( For example, if an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(employee who has access to view information, but not to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.91 Tw
(download it, disregards company policy by "cop[ying] the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(information to a thumb drive and walk[ing] out of the build-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.29 Tw
(ing with it," he obtains information "in a manner" that lacks) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(authorization. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 858. Similarly, if an employee has com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(plete access to information with his own username and pass-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.05 Tw
(word, but accesses information using another employee's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(username and password, he also obtains information "in a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.97 Tw
(manner" that is not authorized. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In contrast, however,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(where such an employee uses his own username and pass-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(word to access the information and then puts it to an imper-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.35 Tw
(missible use, his "manner" of access remains valid. Thus, in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(the Ninth Circuit's view, and ours, interpreting "so" as "in that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(manner" fails to mandate CFAA liability for the improper ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(use) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of information that is accessed with authorization.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.95 Tw
(Nevertheless, because WEC alleges that Miller and Kelley) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(obtained information by downloading it to a personal com-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
4098
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2 Tw
0 Tc
(puter in violation of company policy, we go a step further.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.15 Tw
(Although we believe that interpreting "so" as "in that manner") Tj
0 -13 Td
.09 Tw
(fails to subject an employee to liability for violating a use pol-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(icy, we nonetheless decline to adopt the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( panel's inter-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.67 Tw
(pretation of the conjunction. The interpretation is certainly) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.15 Tw
(plausible, but it is not "clearly warranted by the text." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cran-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(don) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 U.S. at 160. Indeed, Congress may have intended) Tj
0 -13 Td
.65 Tw
("so" to mean "in that manner," but it "could just as well have) Tj
0 -13 Td
.01 Tw
(included `so' as a connector or for emphasis." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(at 858. Thus, faced with the option of two interpretations, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(yield to the rule of lenity and choose the more obliging route.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
("[W]hen [a] choice has to be made between two readings of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(gress should have spoken in language that is clear and defi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(nite." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 344) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(U.S. 218, 221-22 \(1952\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d at 863.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(Here, Congress has not clearly criminalized obtaining or alter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(ing information "in a manner" that is not authorized. Rather,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(it has simply criminalized obtaining or altering information) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(that an individual lacked authorization to obtain or alter. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.03 Tw
(And lest we appear to be needlessly splitting hairs, we) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(maintain that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( panel's interpretation would indeed be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(a harsher approach. For example, such an interpretation would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(impute liability to an employee who with commendable inten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.43 Tw
(tions disregards his employer's policy against downloading) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(information to a personal computer so that he can work at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(home and make headway in meeting his employer's goals.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(Such an employee has authorization to obtain and alter the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(information that he downloaded. Moreover, he has no intent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.7 Tw
(to defraud his employer. But under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( panel's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(approach, because he obtained information "in a manner" that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(was not authorized \(i.e., by downloading it to a personal com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(puter\), he nevertheless would be liable under the CFAA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\). Believing that Congress did not clearly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(intend to criminalize such behavior, we decline to interpret) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("so" as "in that manner." ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-241.47 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
4150
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.58 Tw
0 Tc
(In so doing, we adopt a narrow reading of the terms "with-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(out authorization" and "exceeds authorized access" and hold) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(that they apply only when an individual accesses a computer) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.47 Tw
(without permission or obtains or alters information on a com-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(puter beyond that which he is authorized to access. ) Tj
145.5 -25.3 Td
(3.) Tj
-133.5 -25.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(In adopting these definitions, we reject any interpretation) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.85 Tw
(that grounds CFAA liability on a cessation-of-agency theory.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(The deficiency of a rule that revokes authorization when an) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
4.41 Tw
(employee uses his access for a purpose contrary to the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.47 Tw
(employer's interests is apparent: Such a rule would mean that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.5 Tw
(any employee who checked the latest Facebook posting or) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.41 Tw
(sporting event scores in contravention of his employer's use) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.14 Tw
(policy would be subject to the instantaneous cessation of his) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.07 Tw
(agency and, as a result, would be left without any authoriza-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.96 Tw
(tion to access his employer's computer systems. We recog-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
6.07 Tw
(nize that the Seventh Circuit applied its reasoning to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.96 Tw
(egregious behavior that clearly violated the duty of loyalty.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
.6 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Citrin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 440 F.3d at 419. Nevertheless, we believe that the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.71 Tw
(theory has far-reaching effects unintended by Congress. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.03 Tw
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d at 862 \(noting that the Seventh Circuit) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.51 Tw
("looked only at the culpable behavior of the defendant[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.51 Tw
(]) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.37 Tw
(before [it], and failed to consider the effect on millions of) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.08 Tw
(ordinary citizens caused by the statute's unitary definition of) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.46 Tw
(`exceeds authorized access'"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Restatement \(Third\) of) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.18 Tw
(Agency ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.18 Tw
(8.01 \(2012\) \("An agent has a fiduciary duty to act) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3 Tw
(loyally for the principal's benefit in all matters connected) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.05 Tw
(with the agency relationship."\). Although an employer might) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.83 Tw
(choose to rescind an employee's authorization for violating a) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.11 Tw
(use policy, we do not think Congress intended an immediate) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.08 Tw
(end to the agency relationship and, moreover, the imposition) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(of criminal penalties for such a frolic. ) Tj
142.506 -25.3 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -25.4 Td
.4 Tw
(WEC founds its CFAA claim on Miller's and Kelley's vio-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.96 Tw
(lations of its policies "prohibiting the use of any confidential) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
3666
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.48 Tw
0 Tc
(information and trade secrets unless authorized" and prohibit-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.01 Tw
(ing the "download[ing] [of] confidential and proprietary infor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.1 Tw
(mation to a personal computer." Notably, however, WEC fails) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.47 Tw
(to allege that Miller and Kelley accessed a computer or infor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(mation on a computer without authorization. Indeed, WEC's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(complaint belies such a conclusion because it states that Mil-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.8 Tw
(ler "had access to WEC's intranet and computer servers" and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.34 Tw
("to numerous confidential and trade secret documents stored) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.32 Tw
(on these computer servers, including pricing, terms, pending) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.42 Tw
(projects[,] and the technical capabilities of WEC." Thus, we) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.52 Tw
(agree with the district court that although Miller and Kelley) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.96 Tw
(may have misappropriated information, they did not access a) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.45 Tw
(computer without authorization or exceed their authorized) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.9 Tw
(access. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.9 Tw
(1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\), \(a\)\(4\), \(a\)\(5\)\(B\)-\(C\).) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.77 Tw
(Moreover, because Miller's and Kelley's conduct failed to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.23 Tw
(violate the CFAA, Arc cannot be liable under the statute for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(any role that it played in encouraging such conduct. Accord-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.64 Tw
(ingly, we hold that WEC failed to state a claim for which the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.24 Tw
(CFAA can grant relief, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Fed. R. Civ. P. 12\(b\)\(6\), and we) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(affirm the district court's dismissal of the claim.) Tj
142.17 -26.4 Td
(IV.) Tj
-130.17 -26.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(Our conclusion here likely will disappoint employers hop-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.33 Tw
(ing for a means to rein in rogue employees. But we are) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.57 Tw
(unwilling to contravene Congress's intent by transforming a) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.4 Tw
(statute meant to target hackers into a vehicle for imputing lia-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.55 Tw
(bility to workers who access computers or information in bad) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.48 Tw
(faith, or who disregard a use policy. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Nosal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.1 Tw
(863. \("We construe criminal statutes narrowly so that Con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
0 Tw
(gress will not unintentionally turn ordinary citizens into crimi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.05 Tw
(nals."\). Providing such recourse not only is unnecessary,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(given that other legal remedies exist for these grievances,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( but) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.46 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As evidenced by WEC's complaint, nine other state-law causes of) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.94 Tw
(action potentially provide relief, including conversion, tortious interfer-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.97 Tw
(ence with contractual relations, civil conspiracy, and misappropriation of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(trade secrets. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-241.47 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
3969
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.51 Tw
0 Tc
(also is violative of the Supreme Court's counsel to construe) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.73 Tw
(criminal statutes strictly. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lanier) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 520 U.S. at 266. Thus, we) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.77 Tw
(reject an interpretation of the CFAA that imposes liability on) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.51 Tw
(employees who violate a use policy, choosing instead to limit) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.71 Tw
(such liability to individuals who access computers without) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.75 Tw
(authorization or who obtain or alter information beyond the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(bounds of their authorized access.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
240.684 -26.2 Td
(AFFIRMED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
47.53 0 Td
(WEC C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLINA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NERGY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLUTIONS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
1241
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 53 0 R
/FontDescriptor 54 0 R
>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 55 0 R
/FontDescriptor 56 0 R
>>
endobj
57 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 57 0 R
/FontDescriptor 58 0 R
>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 59 0 R
/FontDescriptor 60 0 R
>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 61 0 R
/FontDescriptor 62 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R]
/Count 2
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R]
/Count 14
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 63 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Tuesday July 24, 2012 12:32:40)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 65
0000000000 65535 f
0000053150 00000 n
0000065770 00000 n
0000002842 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000002819 00000 n
0000054615 00000 n
0000057267 00000 n
0000058821 00000 n
0000061468 00000 n
0000065342 00000 n
0000006034 00000 n
0000003056 00000 n
0000006010 00000 n
0000010221 00000 n
0000006228 00000 n
0000010197 00000 n
0000064119 00000 n
0000013765 00000 n
0000010438 00000 n
0000013741 00000 n
0000017499 00000 n
0000013959 00000 n
0000017475 00000 n
0000021430 00000 n
0000017716 00000 n
0000021406 00000 n
0000025574 00000 n
0000021635 00000 n
0000025550 00000 n
0000065458 00000 n
0000029816 00000 n
0000025779 00000 n
0000029792 00000 n
0000034374 00000 n
0000030033 00000 n
0000034350 00000 n
0000038764 00000 n
0000034581 00000 n
0000038740 00000 n
0000043206 00000 n
0000038971 00000 n
0000043182 00000 n
0000047164 00000 n
0000043413 00000 n
0000047140 00000 n
0000051425 00000 n
0000047371 00000 n
0000051401 00000 n
0000065575 00000 n
0000052970 00000 n
0000051644 00000 n
0000052946 00000 n
0000053183 00000 n
0000054335 00000 n
0000055835 00000 n
0000056987 00000 n
0000058483 00000 n
0000058555 00000 n
0000060033 00000 n
0000061185 00000 n
0000062683 00000 n
0000063835 00000 n
0000065664 00000 n
0000065826 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 65
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 64 0 R
>>
startxref
65963
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>/OCGs[93 0 R]>>/Pages 63 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
21 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<>
endobj
66 0 obj
<>
endobj
67 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 95 0 R>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
Tuesday July 24, 2012 12:32:40
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2013-02-01T09:59:54-05:00
2013-02-01T09:59:54-05:00
application/pdf
uuid:06d1e750-9229-4703-92c9-df88da81a1f0
uuid:9c43e176-cf70-4752-bba1-67428be6f403
endstream
endobj
69 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.51 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(also is violative of the Supreme Court's counsel to construe)Tj
1.73 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(criminal statutes strictly. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
126.522 -21.6 Td
(Lanier)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 520 U.S. at 266. Thus, we)Tj
0.77 Tw -126.522 -13.2 Td
(reject an interpretation of the CFAA that imposes liability on)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(employees who violate a use policy, choosing instead to limit)Tj
2.71 Tw T*
(such liability to individuals who access computers without)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(authorization or who obtain or alter information beyond the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(bounds of their authorized access.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
240.684 -26.2 Td
(AFFIRMED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw -240.684 125.8 Td
[(14)-3321(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.48 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(information and trade secrets unless authorized" and prohibit-)Tj
0.01 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(ing the "download[ing] [of] confidential and proprietary infor-)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(mation to a personal computer." Notably, however, WEC fails)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(to allege that Miller and Kelley accessed a computer or infor-)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(mation on a computer without authorization. Indeed, WEC's)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(complaint belies such a conclusion because it states that Mil-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(ler "had access to WEC's intranet and computer servers" and)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
("to numerous confidential and trade secret documents stored)Tj
1.32 Tw T*
(on these computer servers, including pricing, terms, pending)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(projects[,] and the technical capabilities of WEC." Thus, we)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(agree with the district court that although Miller and Kelley)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(may have misappropriated information, they did not access a)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(computer without authorization or exceed their authorized)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(access. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
37.548 -181.3 Td
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 18 U.S.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.9 Tw (1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\), \(a\)\(4\), \(a\)\(5\)\(B\)-\(C\).)Tj
2.77 Tw -37.548 -13.3 Td
(Moreover, because Miller's and Kelley's conduct failed to)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(violate the CFAA, Arc cannot be liable under the statute for)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(any role that it played in encouraging such conduct. Accord-)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(ingly, we hold that WEC failed to state a claim for which the)Tj
1.24 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(CFAA can grant relief, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Fed. R. Civ. P. 12\(b\)\(6\), and we)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(affirm the district court's dismissal of the claim.)Tj
142.17 -26.4 Td
(IV.)Tj
1.08 Tw -130.17 -26.3 Td
(Our conclusion here likely will disappoint employers hop-)Tj
3.33 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(ing for a means to rein in rogue employees. But we are)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(unwilling to contravene Congress's intent by transforming a)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(statute meant to target hackers into a vehicle for imputing lia-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(bility to workers who access computers or information in bad)Tj
1.48 Tw T*
(faith, or who disregard a use policy. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d at)Tj
2.1 Tw T*
(863. \("We construe criminal statutes narrowly so that Con-)Tj
0 Tw T*
(gress will not unintentionally turn ordinary citizens into crimi-)Tj
4.05 Tw T*
(nals."\). Providing such recourse not only is unnecessary,)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(given that other legal remedies exist for these grievances,)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (4)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( but)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
2.46 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(4)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (As evidenced by WEC's complaint, nine other state-law causes of)Tj
1.94 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(action potentially provide relief, including conversion, tortious interf\
er-)Tj
0.97 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(ence with contractual relations, civil conspiracy, and misappropriation \
of)Tj
1 Tw T*
(trade secrets. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -444.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(13)Tj
-241.47 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.58 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(In so doing, we adopt a narrow reading of the terms "with-)Tj
1.47 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(out authorization" and "exceeds authorized access" and hold)Tj
1 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(that they apply only when an individual accesses a computer)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(without permission or obtains or alters information on a com-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(puter beyond that which he is authorized to access. )Tj
145.5 -25.3 Td
(3.)Tj
1.9 Tw -133.5 -25.3 Td
(In adopting these definitions, we reject any interpretation)Tj
0.85 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(that grounds CFAA liability on a cessation-of-agency theory.)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(The deficiency of a rule that revokes authorization when an)Tj
4.41 Tw T*
(employee uses his access for a purpose contrary to the)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(employer's interests is apparent: Such a rule would mean that)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(any employee who checked the latest Facebook posting or)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(sporting event scores in contravention of his employer's use)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(policy would be subject to the instantaneous cessation of his)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(agency and, as a result, would be left without any authoriza-)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(tion to access his employer's computer systems. We recog-)Tj
6.07 Tw T*
(nize that the Seventh Circuit applied its reasoning to)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(egregious behavior that clearly violated the duty of loyalty.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.6 Tw T*
(See )Tj
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
20.256 -262.2 Td
(Citrin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 440 F.3d at 419. Nevertheless, we believe that the)Tj
1.71 Tw -20.256 -12.7 Td
(theory has far-reaching effects unintended by Congress. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
4.03 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d at 862 \(noting that the Seventh Circuit)Tj
3.51 Tw T*
("looked only at the culpable behavior of the defendant[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.51 Tw (])Tj
2.37 Tw T*
(before [it], and failed to consider the effect on millions of)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(ordinary citizens caused by the statute's unitary definition of)Tj
4.46 Tw T*
(`exceeds authorized access'"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cf.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Restatement \(Third\) of)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(Agency \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.18 Tw (8.01 \(2012\) \("An agent has a fiduciary duty to act)Tj
3 Tw T*
(loyally for the principal's benefit in all matters connected)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(with the agency relationship."\). Although an employer might)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(choose to rescind an employee's authorization for violating a)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(use policy, we do not think Congress intended an immediate)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(end to the agency relationship and, moreover, the imposition)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(of criminal penalties for such a frolic. )Tj
142.506 -25.3 Td
(III.)Tj
0.4 Tw -130.506 -25.4 Td
(WEC founds its CFAA claim on Miller's and Kelley's vio-)Tj
0.96 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(lations of its policies "prohibiting the use of any confidential)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
[(12)-3321(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(puter in violation of company policy, we go a step further.)Tj
0.15 Tw 0 -13 TD
(Although we believe that interpreting "so" as "in that manner")Tj
0.09 Tw T*
(fails to subject an employee to liability for violating a use pol-)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(icy, we nonetheless decline to adopt the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
202.718 -47.4 Td
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( panel's inter-)Tj
2.67 Tw -202.718 -13 Td
(pretation of the conjunction. The interpretation is certainly)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(plausible, but it is not "clearly warranted by the text." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cran-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(don)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 494 U.S. at 160. Indeed, Congress may have intended)Tj
0.65 Tw T*
("so" to mean "in that manner," but it "could just as well have)Tj
0.01 Tw T*
(included `so' as a connector or for emphasis." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(at 858. Thus, faced with the option of two interpretations, we)Tj
0.48 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(yield to the rule of lenity and choose the more obliging route.)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
("[W]hen [a] choice has to be made between two readings of)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate,)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Con-)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(gress should have spoken in language that is clear and defi-)Tj
2.01 Tw T*
(nite." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 344)Tj
2.26 Tw T*
(U.S. 218, 221-22 \(1952\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d at 863.)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(Here, Congress has not clearly criminalized obtaining or alter-)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(ing information "in a manner" that is not authorized. Rather,)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(it has simply criminalized obtaining or altering information)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(that an individual lacked authorization to obtain or alter. )Tj
3.03 Tw 12 -26 Td
(And lest we appear to be needlessly splitting hairs, we)Tj
0.07 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(maintain that the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( panel's interpretation would indeed be)Tj
0 Tw T*
(a harsher approach. For example, such an interpretation would)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(impute liability to an employee who with commendable inten-)Tj
2.43 Tw T*
(tions disregards his employer's policy against downloading)Tj
2.27 Tw T*
(information to a personal computer so that he can work at)Tj
2.37 Tw T*
(home and make headway in meeting his employer's goals.)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(Such an employee has authorization to obtain and alter the)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(information that he downloaded. Moreover, he has no intent)Tj
5.7 Tw T*
(to defraud his employer. But under the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( panel's)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(approach, because he obtained information "in a manner" that)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(was not authorized \(i.e., by downloading it to a personal com-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(puter\), he nevertheless would be liable under the CFAA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
5 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
5 Tw (1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\). Believing that Congress did not clearly)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(intend to criminalize such behavior, we decline to interpret)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("so" as "in that manner." )Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(11)Tj
-241.47 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.21 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(etary information that they transferred to the defendant, they)Tj
1.66 Tw 0 -13 TD
(violated the company's policy regarding the use and disclo-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(sure of that information. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
120.332 -34.4 Td
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 787-89. The court reasoned)Tj
2 Tw -120.332 -13 Td
(that the co-conspirators' violation of the use and disclosure)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(policy constituted access "in a manner" to which they were)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(not entitled. Thus, they violated the CFAA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.81 Tw 12 -26 Td
(As an initial manner, we believe the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( panel's conclu-)Tj
0.03 Tw -12 -13 Td
(sion is a non sequitur. To us, defining "so" as "in that manner")Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(only elucidates our earlier conclusion that "exceeds autho-)Tj
4.87 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(rized access" refers to obtaining or altering information)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(beyond the limits of the employee's authorized access. It does)Tj
2.04 Tw T*
(not address the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(use)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( of information after access. Indeed, the)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(Ninth Circuit indicated as much in its en banc reversal, when)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(it declined to hold that the interpretation of "so" as "in that)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(manner" necessarily means employees can be liable for use-)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(policy violations. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 676 F.3d at 857. Instead, the court)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(offered hypotheticals illustrating how the panel's interpreta-)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(tion of "so" referred to the means of obtaining information,)Tj
4.63 Tw T*
(not the use of information. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( For example, if an)Tj
2.96 Tw T*
(employee who has access to view information, but not to)Tj
2.91 Tw T*
(download it, disregards company policy by "cop[ying] the)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(information to a thumb drive and walk[ing] out of the build-)Tj
1.29 Tw T*
(ing with it," he obtains information "in a manner" that lacks)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(authorization. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 858. Similarly, if an employee has com-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(plete access to information with his own username and pass-)Tj
4.05 Tw T*
(word, but accesses information using another employee's)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(username and password, he also obtains information "in a)Tj
3.97 Tw T*
(manner" that is not authorized. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( In contrast, however,)Tj
2.26 Tw T*
(where such an employee uses his own username and pass-)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(word to access the information and then puts it to an imper-)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(missible use, his "manner" of access remains valid. Thus, in)Tj
0 Tw T*
(the Ninth Circuit's view, and ours, interpreting "so" as "in that)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(manner" fails to mandate CFAA liability for the improper )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(use)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(of information that is accessed with authorization.)Tj
0.95 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Nevertheless, because WEC alleges that Miller and Kelley)Tj
2.07 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(obtained information by downloading it to a personal com-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
[(10)-3321(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.67 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(entitled so to obtain or alter." \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
156.42 -21.4 Td
( )Tj
1.2 Tw (1030\(e\)\(6\).)Tj
3.37 Tw -144.42 -26 Td
(Recognizing that the distinction between these terms is)Tj
0.55 Tw -12 -13 Td
(arguably minute, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Citrin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 440 F.3d at 420, we nevertheless)Tj
4.06 Tw T*
(conclude based on the "ordinary, contemporary, common)Tj
0.01 Tw T*
(meaning," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Perrin v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 444 U.S. 37, 42 \(1979\),)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(of "authorization," that an employee is authorized to access a)Tj
0.08 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(computer when his employer approves or sanctions his admis-)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(sion to that computer. Thus, he accesses a computer "without)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(authorization" when he gains admission to a computer with-)Tj
2.44 Tw T*
(out approval. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Brekka)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 581 F.3d at 1133. Similarly, we)Tj
0.65 Tw T*
(conclude that an employee "exceeds authorized access" when)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(he has approval to access a computer, but uses his access to)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(obtain or alter information that falls outside the bounds of his)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(approved access. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Notably, neither of these definitions)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(extends to the improper )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(use)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( of information validly accessed.)Tj
1.2 Tw 145.5 -26 Td
(2.)Tj
0.33 Tw -133.5 -26 Td
(WEC presses instead an ostensibly plain-language interpre-)Tj
0.58 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(tation articulated in the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( panel decision, which was sub-)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(sequently reversed en banc. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States v. Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 642)Tj
1.69 Tw T*
(F.3d 781 \(9th Cir. 2011\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(rev'd en banc)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d 854 \(9th)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(Cir. 2012\). In that decision, the panel fixated on the word "so")Tj
2.51 Tw T*
(in the definition of "exceeds authorized access." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at)Tj
3.37 Tw T*
(785. The panel declared that, in context, this conjunction)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(means "in a manner or way that is indicated or suggested." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.84 Tw T*
(\(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 2159 \(Philip)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(Babcock Gove ed., 2002\)\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(Thus, it found that an employee "exceed[s] [his] authorized)Tj
1.02 Tw T*
(access" if he uses such access "to obtain or alter information)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
([on] the computer that [he] is not entitled [in that manner] to)Tj
2.48 Tw T*
(obtain or alter." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 785-86. \(third alteration in original\))Tj
4.2 Tw T*
(\(quoting \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.2 Tw (1030\(e\)\(6\)\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(Armed with this interpretation, the court held that the defen-)Tj
3.18 Tw T*
(dant's co-conspirators "exceed[ed] their authorized access")Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(because although they had permission to access the propri-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 294.5 504 Td
(9)Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(special attention because our interpretation applies uniformly)Tj
1.5 Tw 0 -13.6 TD
(in both contexts. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
87.168 -22 Td
(See Leocal v. Ashcroft)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n.8)Tj
1.56 Tw -87.168 -13.6 Td
(\(2004\). Thus, we follow "the canon of strict construction of)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(criminal statutes, or rule of lenity." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Lanier)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(520 U.S. 259, 266 \(1997\). In other words, in the interest of)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(providing fair warning "of what the law intends to do if a cer-)Tj
1.04 Tw T*
(tain line is passed," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Com-)Tj
3.06 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(munities for a Great Or.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 515 U.S. 687, 704 n.18 \(1995\))Tj
2.51 Tw T*
(\(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Bass)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 404 U.S. 336, 348 \(1971\)\))Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(\(internal quotation marks omitted\), we will construe this crim-)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(inal statute strictly and avoid interpretations not "clearly war-)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(ranted by the text," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Crandon v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 494 U.S. 152,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(160 \(1990\).)Tj
145.5 -26.9 Td
(1.)Tj
2.08 Tw -133.5 -26.9 Td
(The CFAA is concerned with the unauthorized access of)Tj
0.35 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(protected computers. Thus, we note at the outset that "access")Tj
3.51 Tw T*
(means "[t]o obtain, acquire," or "[t]o gain admission to.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
4.75 Tw T*
(Oxford English Dictionary)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(3d ed. 2011; online version)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(2012\). Moreover, per the CFAA, a "computer" is a high-speed)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(processing device "and includes any data storage facility or)Tj
3.18 Tw T*
(communications facility directly related to or operating in)Tj
4.23 Tw T*
(conjunction with such device." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.23 Tw (1030\(e\)\(1\). A computer)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(becomes a "protected computer" when it "is used in or affect-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ing interstate or foreign commerce." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (1030\(e\)\(2\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (3)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts ( )Tj
3.31 Tw 12 -26.8 Td
(With respect to the phrase, "without authorization," the)Tj
4.48 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(CFAA does not define "authorization." Nevertheless, the)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(Oxford English Dictionary defines "authorization" as "formal)Tj
4.05 Tw T*
(warrant, or sanction." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Oxford English Dictionary)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(2d ed.)Tj
2.34 Tw T*
(1989; online version 2012\). Regarding the phrase "exceeds)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(authorized access," the CFAA defines it as follows: "to access)Tj
0 Tw T*
(a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
2.28 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.5 Td
(3)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Neither party disputes that the computers involved in this case are)Tj
1 Tw -10 -11.4 Td
("protected computers." )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -466.05 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
[(8)-3821(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.11 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ity to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(had been that relationship." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
139.344 -21.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 420-21. )Tj
1.37 Tw -127.344 -26 Td
(The second, articulated by the Ninth Circuit and followed)Tj
2.21 Tw -12 -13 Td
(by the district court here, interprets "without authorization")Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(and "exceeds authorized access" literally and narrowly, limit-)Tj
2.16 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(ing the terms' application to situations where an individual)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(accesses a computer or information on a computer without)Tj
2.36 Tw T*
(permission. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States v. Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d 854, 863)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(\(9th Cir. 2012\) \(en banc\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 581)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(F.3d 1127, 1134-35 \(9th Cir. 2009\). Thus, in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Ninth)Tj
6 Tw T*
(Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the defendant's co-)Tj
2.87 Tw T*
(conspirators, a group of employees at an executive search)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(firm, did not violate the CFAA when they retrieved confiden-)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(tial information via their company user accounts and trans-)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(ferred it to the defendant, a competitor and former employee.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.93 Tw T*
(Nosal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d at 856, 864. It reasoned that the CFAA fails)Tj
1.44 Tw T*
(to provide a remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets or)Tj
2.47 Tw T*
(violation of a use policy where authorization has not been)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(rescinded. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 863-64. As we explain below, we agree with)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(this latter view.)Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
1.47 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(As with any issue of statutory interpretation, we focus on)Tj
1.23 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(the plain language of the statute, seeking "first and foremost)Tj
3.6 Tw T*
(. . . to implement congressional intent." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v.)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(Abdelshafi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 592 F.3d 602, 607 \(4th Cir. 2010\) \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(States v. Passaro)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 577 F.3d 207, 213 \(4th Cir. 2009\)\) \(internal)Tj
1.56 Tw T*
(quotation marks omitted\). Thus, "`we give the terms [of the)Tj
5.6 Tw T*
(statute] their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,)Tj
2.61 Tw T*
(absent an indication [that] Congress intended' the statute's)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(language `to bear some different import.'" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ste-)Tj
2.93 Tw T*
(phens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 565 F.3d 131, 137 \(4th Cir.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(2009\)\). )Tj
0.03 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Where, as here, our analysis involves a statute whose provi-)Tj
0.44 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(sions have both civil and criminal application, our task merits)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 294.5 504 Td
(7)Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 300.504 635.1 Td
(II.)Tj
1 Tw -132.504 -26 Td
(We review de novo a district court's dismissal pursuant to)Tj
1.07 Tw -12 -13 Td
(Rule 12\(b\)\(6\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
73.792 -47.4 Td
(Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 678 F.3d)Tj
1.03 Tw -73.792 -13 Td
(271, 274 \(4th Cir. 2012\), accepting as true all factual allega-)Tj
0 Tw 0 -13 TD
(tions contained in the complaint, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Erickson v. Pardus)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 551 U.S.)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(89, 94 \(2007\)\(per curiam\).)Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(A.)Tj
4.6 Tw -132.168 -26 Td
(WEC alleges that Appellees violated \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.6 Tw (1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\),)Tj
1.56 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(\(a\)\(4\), \(a\)\(5\)\(B\), and \(a\)\(5\)\(C\), each of which require \
that a)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(party either access a computer "without authorization" or "ex-)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(ceed[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.63 Tw (] authorized access." The district court held that Appel-)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(lees' alleged conduct\320the violation of policies regarding the)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(use and downloading of confidential information\320did not)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(contravene any of these provisions. Accordingly, the crux of)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(the issue presented here is the scope of "without authoriza-)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(tion" and "exceeds authorized access." We particularly exam-)Tj
4.41 Tw T*
(ine whether these terms extend to violations of policies)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(regarding the use of a computer or information on a computer)Tj
2.46 Tw T*
(to which a defendant otherwise has access. Before delving)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(into statutory analysis, however, we briefly review the per-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(spectives of our sister circuits. )Tj
2 Tw 12 -26 Td
(In short, two schools of thought exist. The first, promul-)Tj
2.58 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(gated by the Seventh Circuit and advanced by WEC here,)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(holds that when an employee accesses a computer or informa-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(tion on a computer to further interests that are adverse to his)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(employer, he violates his duty of loyalty, thereby terminating)Tj
2.7 Tw T*
(his agency relationship and losing any authority he has to)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(access the computer or any information on it. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Int'l Airport)Tj
1.86 Tw T*
(Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 \(7th Cir. 2006\).)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(Thus, for example, the Seventh Circuit held that an employee)Tj
1 Tw T*
(who erased crucial data on his company laptop prior to turn-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(ing it in at the end of his employment violated the CFAA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.25 Tw T*
(at 419-21. It reasoned that his "breach of his duty of loyalty)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
(terminated his agency relationship . . . and with it his author-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
[(6)-3821(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.12 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(actions, it "has suffered and will continue to suffer impair-)Tj
1.33 Tw 0 -14 TD
(ment to the integrity of its data, programs, systems or infor-)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(mation, including economic damages, and loss aggregating)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(substantially more than $5,000 during a one-year period.")Tj
0.33 Tw 12 -27.7 Td
(In October 2010, WEC sued Miller, Kelley, and Arc, alleg-)Tj
3 Tw -12 -14 Td
(ing nine state-law causes of action and a violation of the)Tj
0.91 Tw 0 -13.9 TD
(CFAA. Regarding its CFAA claim, WEC averred that Miller)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(and Kelley violated the Act because "[u]nder WEC's policies)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(they were not permitted to download confidential and propri-)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(etary information to a personal computer." Thus, by doing so,)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(they "breache[d] their fiduciary duties to WEC" and via that)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(breach, they either \(1\) lost all authorization to access the con-)Tj
4.71 Tw T*
(fidential information or \(2\) exceeded their authorization.)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(WEC sought to hold Arc liable because it claimed that Miller)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(and Kelley undertook this conduct as Arc's agents. )Tj
0.66 Tw 12 -27.6 Td
(Appellees moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of)Tj
0.22 Tw -12 -13.9 Td
(Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\), and the district court held that WEC)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(failed to state a claim for which the CFAA provided relief:)Tj
2.95 Tw 22 -27.6 Td
([I]n this case, WEC's company policies regulated)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.75 Tw T*
(use)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
37.996 -314.1 Td
( of information not access to that information.)Tj
0.62 Tw -15.996 -13.9 Td
(Thus, even if Miller and Kelley's purpose in access-)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(ing the information was contrary to company poli-)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(cies regulating use, it would not establish a violation)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(of company policies relevant to access and, conse-)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(quently, would not support liability under the CFAA.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.48 Tw -22 -27.6 Td
(WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, No. 0:10-cv-)Tj
1.73 Tw T*
(2775-CMC, 2011 WL 379458, at *5 \(D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011\).)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(Thus, it dismissed the CFAA claim and declined to exercise)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (2)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts ( )Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.66 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -27.3 Td
(2)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (WEC has since moved forward with these claims in South Carolina)Tj
1 Tw -10 -11.8 Td
(state court. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -465.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 450.5 655.5 Td
(5)Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.6 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(alleges that Miller, Kelley, and Arc violated all three of these)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(provisions.)Tj
144.498 -25.3 Td
(B.)Tj
0.47 Tw -132.498 -25.3 Td
(WEC and Arc are competitors, providing specialized weld-)Tj
3.12 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(ing and related services to the power generation industry.)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(Both companies are incorporated in South Carolina and main-)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(tain their principal places of business in York County, South)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(Carolina. Prior to April 30, 2010, WEC employed Mike Mil-)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(ler as a Project Director and Emily Kelley as his assistant.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Both individuals now work for Arc. )Tj
0.71 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(When Miller worked for WEC, the company provided him)Tj
2.44 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(with a laptop computer and cell phone, and authorized his)Tj
5.05 Tw T*
(access to the company's intranet and computer servers.)Tj
0.35 Tw T*
(According to WEC's complaint, "Miller had access to numer-)Tj
2.43 Tw T*
(ous confidential and trade secret documents stored on . . .)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(computer servers, including pricing terms, pending projects[,])Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(and the technical capabilities of WEC." To protect its confi-)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(dential information and trade secrets, WEC instituted policies)Tj
0.61 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(that prohibited using the information without authorization or)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(downloading it to a personal computer. These policies did not)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(restrict Miller's authorization to access the information, how-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ever.)Tj
3.95 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(On April 30, 2010, Miller resigned from WEC. WEC)Tj
1.08 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(alleges that prior to resigning, Miller, at Arc's direction, "ei-)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(ther by himself or by his assistant, Kelley, downloaded a sub-)Tj
5.63 Tw T*
(stantial number of WEC's confidential documents" and)Tj
4.28 Tw T*
(emailed them to his personal e-mail address. WEC also)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(alleges that Miller and Kelley downloaded confidential infor-)Tj
2.87 Tw T*
(mation to a personal computer. Twenty days after leaving)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(WEC, Miller reportedly used the downloaded information to)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(make a presentation on behalf of Arc to a potential WEC cus-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tomer. )Tj
4.1 Tw 12 -25.4 Td
(The customer ultimately awarded two projects to Arc.)Tj
4.11 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(WEC contends that as a result of Miller's and Kelley's)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
[(4)-3821(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 302.502 635.1 Td
(I.)Tj
-2.334 -26.4 Td
(A.)Tj
2.1 Tw -132.168 -26.3 Td
(In 1984, Congress initiated a campaign against computer)Tj
2.33 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(crime by passing the Counterfeit Access Device and Com-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(puter Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(Stat. 2190. Shortly thereafter, in 1986, it expanded the Act)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(with a revised version, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(1986, Pub. L. No. 99-474, 100 Stat. 1213. Today, the CFAA)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(remains primarily a criminal statute designed to combat hack-)Tj
2.62 Tw T*
(ing. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
23.956 -154.2 Td
(A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 562 F.3d)Tj
2.11 Tw -23.956 -13.3 Td
(630, 645 \(4th Cir. 2009\). Nevertheless, it permits a private)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(party "who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of)Tj
1.32 Tw T*
([the statute]" to bring a civil action "to obtain compensatory)Tj
2.43 Tw T*
(damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief." 18)Tj
1.44 Tw T*
(U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.44 Tw (1030\(g\). Notably, although proof of at least one of)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(five additional factors is necessary to maintain a civil action,)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (1)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.36 Tw 0 Ts T*
(a violation of any of the statute's provisions exposes the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(offender to both civil and criminal liability. )Tj
0.14 Tw 12 -26.3 Td
(Among other things, the CFAA renders liable a person who)Tj
1.85 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(\(1\) "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . infor-)Tj
6.44 Tw T*
(mation from any protected computer," in violation of)Tj
2.01 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.01 Tw (1030\(a\)\(2\)\(C\); \(2\) "knowingly and with intent to defraud,)Tj
5.5 Tw T*
(accesses a protected computer without authorization, or)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct fur-)Tj
2.34 Tw T*
(thers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value," in)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(violation of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.51 Tw (1030\(a\)\(4\); or \(3\) "intentionally accesses a pro-)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(tected computer without authorization, and as a result of such)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(conduct, recklessly causes damage[,] or . . . causes damage)Tj
2.97 Tw T*
(and loss," in violation of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.97 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(B\)-\(C\). Here, WEC)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.59 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Maintenance of a civil action requires one of the factors outlined in)Tj
1.15 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.15 Tw (1030\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\(i\)\(I\)-\(V\). Here, WEC alleges that its aggregat\
e losses as)Tj
1.61 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(a result of Appellees' conduct were "at least $5,000 in value" during a)Tj
1 Tw T*
(one-year period, which satisfies \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (1030\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\(i\)\(I\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -444.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 450.5 655.5 Td
(3)Tj
-246.97 0 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 276.996 635.1 Td
(COUNSEL)Tj
3.05 Tw -120.996 -28.4 Td
(ARGUED:)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
55.992 -36.8 Td
( Kirsten Elena Small, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,)Tj
3.83 Tw -55.992 -14.3 Td
(Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James William)Tj
2.9 Tw 0 -14.3 TD
(Bradford, Jr., JIM BRADFORD LAW FIRM, LLC, York,)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(South Carolina; Brian S. McCoy, MCCOY LAW FIRM,)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees. )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(ON BRIEF:)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.71 Tw T*
(Mark Gordon, Anthony J. Basinski, PIETRAGALLO GOR-)Tj
2.6 Tw T*
(DON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP, Pittsburgh,)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(Pennsylvania; Angus H. Macaulay, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel H. Har-)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(shaw, BRICE LAW FIRM, LLC, York, South Carolina, for)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Appellees.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
123.666 -47.8 Td
(OPINION)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
-123.666 -28.3 Td
(FLOYD, Circuit Judge:)Tj
1.84 Tw 12 -28.3 Td
(In April 2010, Mike Miller resigned from his position as)Tj
3.1 Tw -12 -14.3 Td
(Project Director for WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc.)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(\(WEC\). Twenty days later, he made a presentation to a poten-)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(tial WEC customer on behalf of WEC's competitor, Arc)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(Energy Services, Inc. \(Arc\). The customer ultimately chose to)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(do business with Arc. WEC contends that before resigning,)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(Miller, acting at Arc's direction, downloaded WEC's propri-)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(etary information and used it in making the presentation.)Tj
1 Tw 0 -14.2 TD
(Thus, it sued Miller, his assistant Emily Kelley, and Arc for,)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(among other things, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Act \(CFAA\), 18 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (1030. )Tj
1.32 Tw 12 -28.3 Td
(The district court dismissed WEC's CFAA claim, holding)Tj
0.85 Tw -12 -14.2 Td
(that the CFAA provides no relief for Appellees' alleged con-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(duct. We agree and therefore affirm. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -206.65 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
[(2)-3821(WEC C)]TJ
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
239.159 -136.5 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. M)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ILLER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 656.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 19 Tf
1.9 Tw 84.2 Tz -114.766 -40 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0 Tw -66.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(WEC C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
38.868 -104.8 Td
(AROLINA)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLUTIONS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz -38.868 -13.2 Td
(LLC,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
80.988 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.512 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
135.57 -6.6 Td
(No. 11-1201)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -36.45 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -10.1 Td
(W)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILLIE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILLER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, a/k/a Mike; E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MILY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(K)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ELLEY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NERGY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERVICES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
65.688 -18 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 115.932 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts -142.878 -26.2 Td
(Appeal from the United States District Court)Tj
-6.87 -13.2 Td
(for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.)Tj
12.078 -13.2 Td
(Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.)Tj
51.39 -13.2 Td
(\(0:10-cv-02775-CMC\))Tj
-0.468 -26.2 Td
(Argued: April 2, 2012)Tj
-2.334 -26.4 Td
(Decided: July 26, 2012)Tj
-64.788 -26.2 Td
(Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and)Tj
34.626 -13.2 Td
(HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.)Tj
-62.376 -51.2 Td
(Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opin-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(ion, in which Judge Shedd and Senior Judge Hamilton joined.)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -83.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -146.3 cm
0 0 m
0 54.5 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -217.8 cm
0 0 m
0 54.5 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -224.75 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -407.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -472.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 231.2904968 766 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
<>>>/Resources<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Subtype/Form>>stream
BT
0 g
0 i
/C2_0 10 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 0 -7.842 TD
[<0026004800550057004C0052005500440055004C0003>1<0047004C00560050004C0056005600480047000F0003002D00440051005800440055005C00030015000F00030015001300140016>]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
<>
endobj
85 0 obj
[87 0 R]
endobj
86 0 obj
<>stream
H\͊0O1PVD(vul2vk|M/]dLDgn-kOI3_]/F'4И~ʒćN[huPבxs6Z}D{63TUtDH4l|ߎ2 v]g._'Oc{ݹ}qWA'J"dPP
mP
ewCPSv8%+zrAyzR@/9^z9pq]4=#фfr6x1vn_+ mFM
endstream
endobj
87 0 obj
<>
endobj
88 0 obj
<>
endobj
89 0 obj
<>
endobj
90 0 obj
<>stream
Hj 0
endstream
endobj
91 0 obj
<>stream
H\U tW}wyZkbPydA"RB!vbĒj-*'Q8xtmPUn`jƨcޝ_tfN;wn~]P̂Fb IU졓'x/9#(o / +h7sa3~1~:?=nh20)19S6l6/olΘgEH-o liк,E9{ۘ,~!WUG[c6WPߕ`j{Z
}{jӥ7R'Csv)c#j饨 ln;s(#][Ӏ(,Z}iC(Ag|聥؎1MTlBD@!b1pWLJeͿ+)؆}2Zz#vG;.ץہZ7P 1P#{Zv"b!l&ЍBkYɤ06H&>5\m#(Q
u]njEtC4.up+9ZR{ɣ:a0`=qJSY-[Sr^ LLtjfa4F*\3[ᨇ,~[1NJ97`;WUs7yџ cqUf~nN.艁ɘ?TCOMf{ qTIsG8jR
*s"Ծ[+U֑yFd.?bGnz^o\l
rB!ġ ~rYMȯxXzYu}8w $G0VYHrUA!bU3NtKIuNҵP=S"1$"b1o7;O>l 5
.t}4B<\\Hlf%Ɨs} J,+Y
qڸ+Q #Y"ttQ/4v\Ge%ZU<'U[L-TPҨ&% ձz0xL[:[xUC+ލD$c
CZnw~*쑑HPe8{P3cWTL)*A)2ߤQE0*,첧]a5Іb#ky