Editors note: In an earlier article, the author reviewed the factual findings and legal conclusions in the temporary restraining order and trial court opinions in Mintel International Group v. Neergheen, (Civ. 08-CV-3939).
At the hearing on a proposed temporary restraining order, the court found that Meesham Neergheen’s copying of sensitive data the day before he left the employ of Mintel International Group for a direct competitor was a prima facie violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act while at trial. The court found that Mintel had effectively forced Neergheen out of his position and that his copying of data was not the basis for any cause of action. In this week’s article we will try to ascertain why the court reversed its legal conclusion even though the essential facts of the case did not change.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
