{"id":699,"date":"2014-10-31T18:48:18","date_gmt":"2014-10-31T18:48:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/"},"modified":"2014-10-31T18:48:18","modified_gmt":"2014-10-31T18:48:18","slug":"protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/","title":{"rendered":"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This blog previously discussed the Court\u2019s rulings on discovery disputes in <em>Earthcam, Inc. v. Oxblue Corporation<\/em>, No. 1:11-CV-2278-WSD, 2013 WL 1693959 (N.D. Ga. April 17, 2013), a lawsuit involving competitors in the camera technology industry (click <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-involving-camera-technology-competitors\/\">here<\/a>). This blog entry addresses another ruling by the Court.<\/p>\n<p>One of Earthcam\u2019s claims against Oxblue was for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (\u201cCFAA\u201d). Oxblue filed a motion for sanctions with respect to this claim, arguing that in discovery Earthcam had failed to produce any proof of damages with respect to its CFAA claim. Oxblue argued that Earthcam\u2019s CFAA claim should be stricken based on its failure to provide such proof.<\/p>\n<p>The Court rejected this argument, finding that even if Earthcam had failed to sufficiently respond to discovery regarding its CFAA claim, the appropriate remedy is to preclude Earthcam from relying on any evidence that was requested in discovery but which was not disclosed. The Court thus denied Oxblue\u2019s motion for sanctions.<\/p>\n<p>In my experience, for better or for worse, there are an increasing number of cases in which attorneys try to use Rule 11 as an alternative to summary judgment. The above ruling shows that in many instances, Rule 11 is not the proper vehicle to obtain dismissal of a claim that discovery has revealed there is no evidence supporting one or more of the elements of the claim. Instead, summary judgment is the appropriate vehicle. (But click <a href=\"\/northern-district-sanctions-company-for-bringing-baseless-trade-secrets-claim\/\">here<\/a> for a discussion about a case where a court struck a frivolous claim for misappropriation of trade secrets as a Rule 11 sanction).<\/p>\n<p>Stay tuned for more blog entries regarding other rulings in <em>Earthcam, Inc.<\/em>, including another attempt to obtain sanctions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This blog previously discussed the Court\u2019s rulings on discovery disputes in Earthcam, Inc. v. Oxblue Corporation, No. 1:11-CV-2278-WSD, 2013 WL 1693959 (N.D. Ga. April 17, 2013), a lawsuit involving competitors in the camera technology industry (click here). This blog entry addresses another ruling by the Court. One of Earthcam\u2019s claims against Oxblue was for violation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_mo_disable_npp":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,9],"tags":[28,73,16,29],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Neal Weinrich\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Neal Weinrich\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/\",\"name\":\"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1\"},\"description\":\"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\",\"description\":\"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1\",\"name\":\"Neal Weinrich\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Neal Weinrich\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/neal-weinrich\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.","description":"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.","og_description":"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/","og_site_name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","article_published_time":"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00","author":"Neal Weinrich","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Neal Weinrich","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/","name":"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-31T18:48:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1"},"description":"This post continues to address the protracted dispute between camera technology competitors, Earthcam, Inc. and Oxblue Corporation.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/protracted-dispute-camera-technology-competitors-contd\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Protracted Dispute Between Camera Technology Competitors, Cont\u2019d."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/","name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","description":"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1","name":"Neal Weinrich","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Neal Weinrich"},"url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/neal-weinrich\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}