## Facts

- NetApp and Nimble competed in the data-storage market.
- NetApp alleged that Nimble targeted NetApp personnel and obtained NetApp technical and business information to gain a competitive advantage.
- Michael Reynolds worked for a Nimble-related entity in Australia after prior work connected to a NetApp partner.
- NetApp alleged a Nimble-affiliated individual copied NetApp data from NetApp computers and transferred it to a non-secure device.
- NetApp claimed the copying and resulting competitive use caused compensable “loss” and “damage” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of copying data—without corruption, deletion, or unavailability—plead “damage” or “loss” within the meaning of CFAA § 1030, particularly for a claim under § 1030(a)(5).
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint adequately pleaded various state-law claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8.
3. Whether particular allegations and an entire cause of action should be struck under Rule 12(f) as immaterial, impertinent, or unduly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court dismissed NetApp’s CFAA § 1030(a)(5) theory because the alleged conduct (copying and use) did not plead statutory “damage” or qualifying “loss” tied to impairment.
- NetApp’s access-based CFAA claims under § 1030(a)(2)(C) and § 1030(a)(4), and a state-law breach of contract claim, remained pending.
- The court dismissed certain state-law causes of action where NetApp did not connect required elements to specific supporting facts (often with leave to amend).
- The court granted the motion to strike, removing an entire cause of action and specified allegations to streamline the case.

## Legal Principles

- CFAA “damage” requires an impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information; copying alone, without impairment, does not satisfy the definition.
- Competitive harm from the disclosure or use of copied information generally fits misappropriation or trade secret theories rather than CFAA “damage.”
- Access-based CFAA provisions (such as § 1030(a)(2) and § 1030(a)(4)) can be viable on allegations of obtaining information via unauthorized access even when there is no impairment-based “damage.”
- Under Twombly/Iqbal, conclusory allegations of “unfair” competition or wrongdoing are insufficient without factual allegations supporting each element of the asserted state-law claims.
- Rule 12(f) permits striking allegations or claims that are immaterial, impertinent, or likely to cause undue prejudice, including where theories have been abandoned or are no longer relevant.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by rejecting a CFAA § 1030(a)(5) claim premised on copying without impairment, allowing access-based CFAA claims and a contract claim to proceed, and striking irrelevant or prejudicial material from the pleading.


NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-05058-LHK, 2015 WL 400251 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015)