©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 349 59 See, e.g., Total Recall Techs. v. Luckey, 2016 WL 19979, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016) (granting 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss common law claims as preempted, notwithstanding that plaintiff “[b]y strategy … has studiously avoided assertion of any trade secret claims”). 60 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. 61 642 F.3d 781, 785, 787-89 (9th Cir. 2011). The defendant was a former employee of an executive search company who left to start a competitor and then convinced former co-workers—still with the company—to access the company’s confidential database to send him client information. These co-workers had authorized access to the database, but in forwarding the information were violating a company policy against disclosing confidential information. 62 United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (2012) (en banc). 63 The court stated: “We remain unpersuaded by the decisions of our sister circuits [the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh] that interpret the CFAA broadly to cover violations of corporate computer use restrictions or violations of a duty of loyalty.” 64 Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1652-62 (2021). 65 United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2016). 66 United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015). 67 Id. at 789 (emphasis in original). 68 Id. 69 Pen. Code § 502(e)(1).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4