United States v. Batti
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
631 F.3d 371 (2011)

- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
While employed by an advertising company, Luay Batti (defendant) accessed and copied confidential computer files belonging to the company’s CEO. These files included executive compensation, financial statements, strategic plans, and video footage that the company had purchased to use in a television commercial. Batti told the company that he had obtained the information to show flaws in the company’s security. The company fired Batti in response. When the information and video appeared on the Internet, Batti was charged with violating The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In the indictment, the government sought a felony conviction by alleging that the information Batti obtained was worth more than $5,000. During trial, the company testified that it paid $305,000 for the television-commercial footage. The court found that the $305,000 amount best represented the cost of the information Batti obtained and convicted Batti of felony violation of the act. Batti appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that there was no evidence that his actions had any impact on the company’s use of the footage and that Batti did not damage the information or profit from it in any way.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.