Role Models America, Inc. v. Jimmie Jones & Nova Southeastern University
305 F.Supp.2d 564
In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Case Number CIV. 03-1857
Before District Judge Blake
Decided on February 25, 2004

Relevancy of the Case: In a CFAA claim, is receiving information over email the same as accessing information on a computer intentionally?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
• The Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act, MD. Commercial Law Code § 11-1209

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Role Models America (RMA), the plaintiff, operated a residential military-style school for high school dropouts. RMA hired Social Consulting International (SCI) to monitor and evaluate the Academy’s performance during the grant period.
• Approximately during the first year of the grant period, Dr Jones, the first defendant, worked as the Academy’s principal.
• The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant used proprietary information, including data compiled by SCI, to complete a post-doctoral program at Nova Southeastern University, the second defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff claims that the second defendant’s conduct entitles the plaintiff to damages under CFAA and MUTSA.

Prominent Argument by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the first defendant essentially created a clone of information on his system by maintaining a copy of data available on RMA’s computers.
• The second defendant’s counsel submitted that the court cannot consider the information as a trade secret under MUTSA. Further, they only learned how the information was obtained when RMA’s lawyer sent a notice.

Opinion of the Bench

• The CFAA provisions are applicable only if NSU had intentionally accessed information. Or there was a clear intention to defraud. Receiving information through email is not the same as accessing information from a computer.
• It is not possible to establish an agency relationship between Dr Jones and NSU. As a result, NSA shall not be liable for the acts done by the first defendant and resulting damages thereof.
• The plaintiff’s case entirely depends on allegations with no factual evidence to support that the second defendant assisted the first defendant in misappropriating the plaintiff’s trade secrets.
• Considering that the plaintiff paid $250,000 to SCI for their services, the data used by Dr Jones was certainly economically valuable.

Final Decision

• The court granted the second defendant’s motion to dismiss the CFAA claim as to Nova Southeastern University; however, it rejected the motion to dismiss the MUTSA claim.

Anjini Pandey, an undergraduate student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.