## Facts

- Luay Batti worked in the IT department of Campbell-Ewald, an advertising company, for about six years and was fired in March 2007.
- About six months before his termination, Batti accessed the company’s server without authorization and copied confidential files belonging to the company’s CEO while the CEO’s computer was being replaced.
- The copied materials included sensitive corporate information (e.g., executive compensation, financial statements, management goals, and strategic plans).
- The copied materials also included commercial video footage purchased for use in television advertising for the company’s largest client, General Motors.
- On February 27, 2007, Batti met with a senior company manager, provided a letter complaining about IT management and security weaknesses, and gave the manager a disk containing some copied files and the commercial footage.
- The manager investigated and Batti was fired shortly thereafter for poor judgment in accessing and copying the CEO’s files.
- After confidential information and the video footage later appeared on the internet, Batti was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).
- Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Batti of a felony CFAA offense under § 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii), finding the value of the information obtained exceeded $5,000 and relying in part on evidence that the company paid $305,000 for the footage.
- The district court also ordered restitution of $47,565.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in finding that the “value of the information obtained” exceeded $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii), supporting a felony conviction.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering $47,565 in restitution.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the felony conviction and the restitution order.
- The court held that using the cost of producing or acquiring the information obtained was a reasonable method for valuing information under § 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii).
- The court rejected the argument that the government had to prove Batti impaired the company’s use of the information or personally profited from it to satisfy the felony value threshold.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering $47,565 in restitution.

## Legal Principles

- For CFAA felony enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii), “value of the information obtained” may be measured by the information’s production or acquisition cost.
- Section 1030(c)(2)(B)(iii) does not require proof that the defendant damaged the data, reduced the victim’s ability to use it, or gained profit from it; the focus is the value of what was obtained.
- Whether restitution is legally permitted is reviewed de novo; if permitted, the restitution amount is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A restitution amount will be upheld absent a clear error of judgment in the district court’s valuation and loss attribution.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that acquisition or production cost is a permissible measure of the “value of the information obtained” for the CFAA’s $5,000 felony threshold, and it affirmed both Batti’s felony conviction and the $47,565 restitution award.


United States v. Batti, 631 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 2011)