Two weeks after California District Judge George H. Wu denied its preliminary injunction request against CoStar, Move has filed a new motion claiming former Realtor.com News & Insights editor James Kaminsky violated the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he accessed Move-owned documents roughly 40 times after being laid off in January.
Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
Two weeks after California District Judge George H. Wu denied its preliminary injunction request against CoStar, Move has filed a new motion claiming former Realtor.com News & Insights editor James Kaminsky violated the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he accessed Move-owned documents roughly 40 times after being laid off in January.
The CFAA “prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization” and includes maximum prison sentences of 10 to 20 years for obtaining national security documents, accessing a computer and obtaining information, extortion involving computers, and six other hacking offenses. The attempt and conspiracy to commit a CFAA offense carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ explainer on the Act.
Move’s counsel claimed Kaminsky’s actions, which included deleting personal information and documents from his Move-owned computer and accessing several News & Insights editorial documents and presentations, qualify as CFAA offenses. Move claims Kaminsky shared those documents with CoStar to bolster the portal’s Homes.com traffic and search engine optimization (SEO) performance and caused more than $5,000 in damages, matching the CFAA threshold that enables an alleged victim to “take a private right action.”
“Mr. Kaminsky’s attack on Move’s protected computer systems, both as an individual and a CoStar employee, caused significant harm—and certainly more than $5,000 in damages,” the filing read. “Move spent substantial time and resources investigating the nature and scope of the breach, taking steps to secure its computer systems and engaging a forensic expert to assist.”
“Move and its expert were ultimately unable to recover the trove of electronic files Mr. Kaminsky destroyed,” it added. “[Move’s first amended complaint] detailed factual allegations are more than sufficient to plausibly state a CFAA claim. The allegations provide Defendants with ample notice of the basis of the claim, and adequately plead damages and loss.”
The motion, if granted, would allow Move to file a second amended complaint and begin the discovery process, which Judge Wu mentioned in the Sept. 23 preliminary injunction hearing. Wu said Move’s decision to retract its initial request for expedited discovery was a mistake, as it prevented the portal from accessing the evidence needed to create a compelling theft of trade secrets claim against Kaminsky and CoStar.
“Lacking evidence of its own (because of a failure to take advantage of an opportunity for discovery, despite its initial request for such an opportunity), Move otherwise only questions the veracity of Kaminsky in multiple regards,” Wu said, according to a previous Inman article.
“But Move’s failure to take advantage of the opportunity for discovery has allowed it to either a) consider only what it believes it already knows about Kaminsky’s conduct before this lawsuit was filed (none of which involves actual disclosure of anything to CoStar) to form the basis for what Move believes [or] speculates Kaminsky might do with CoStar going forward…”
Echoing his previous statements, CoStar Group General Counsel Gene Boxer said Move’s CFAA claim is another “PR stunt” in response to the company’s motion to dismiss the case.
“We are grateful that the Court has already denied Move’s request for an injunction. The Court’s opinion underscores what CoStar has said all along—Move’s case is built on baseless speculation, not fact,” Boxer told Inman in an emailed statement. “As we have said from the beginning, this case—which Move has tried to weaponize in the press—is a PR stunt in response to the fact that Move is failing in the marketplace. Putting aside the inaccuracies in Move’s theory, Move’s complaint also fails as a matter of law.”
“CoStar has therefore moved to dismiss several of Move’s claims as legally deficient, including because Move has failed to plead the requisite damages or that CoStar ever accessed any Move documents, computer, or information,” he added. “Whether at this phase or at the conclusion, CoStar is confident it will ultimately prevail in this case, on both the facts and the law.”
A Move spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.
Read the full filing below:
English (US) · 