DEADLINE.com. seq.; Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RED GRANITE PICTURES, INC.

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Matthew L. Schwartz (phv appl. to be submitted) mlschwartz@bsfllp.com Dan G. Boyle (phv appl. to be submitted) dboyle@bsfllp.com Lexington Avenue New York, NY 00 Telephone: --00 Facsimile: --0 Karen Paik (SBN ) kpaik@bsfllp.com 0 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 0 Santa Monica, CA 00 Telephone: Facsimile: 0--0 Attorneys for Plaintiff RED GRANITE PICTURES, INC. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, JOHN/JANE DOES -0 Defendant. Case No. :-cv-0 FOR: ) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, U.S.C. 00, et seq.; ) VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT, CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 0; ) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS ) INVASION OF PRIVACY ) STALKING UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 0. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 Plaintiff Red Granite Pictures, Inc. ( Plaintiff ), by and through its undersigned counsel, having reasonable cause to believe that violations of law have occurred, alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants John/Jane Does -0, whose identities are presently unknown, as a result of Defendants campaign of harassment and threats against Plaintiff and its employees, advisors, and business partners. As described below, Defendants have been responsible for sending harassing s to many of Plaintiff s employees, including to employees at nonpublic addresses, as well as to third parties that do business with Plaintiff. Defendants have also made a series of harassing and threatening phone calls to an employee of a related company, who advises Plaintiff. THE PARTIES. Plaintiff is a motion picture production and distribution enterprise, incorporated under the laws of California, and conducting business in the County of Los Angeles, California.. The true identities of Defendants John/Jane Does -0 are unknown. Upon information and belief, information obtained in discovery from third party e- mail service providers, social networking websites, financial institutions, and telecommunications providers will lead to the identification of these Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under U.S.C. over the first claim for relief alleging violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ), U.S.C. 00 et seq. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over the remaining claims for relief, pursuant to U.S.C. (a), as those claims are substantially related to Plaintiff s claims under the CFAA and arise from a common nucleus of operative facts, and thus form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

3 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0. Venue is proper in this District and before this Court pursuant to U.S.C. (b)() because Plaintiff is a resident of this District, and the conduct complained of has occurred primarily in the County of Los Angeles, California.. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each of them knowingly committed acts in California that form the basis of this action or directed or conspired with others to commit acts in California, as fully set forth FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff is a film production and distribution company, headquartered in West Hollywood, California, which was formed in 00. Despite Plaintiff s relatively recent creation, the company has had stunning success in a short period of time.. In 0, less than three years after the company was formed, Plaintiff financed and produced The Wolf of Wall Street, a semi-biographical film directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, which went on to be nominated for five Academy Awards and achieved widespread critical acclaim and popular success.. Plaintiff s latest project, a comedy starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg entitled Daddy s Home, is scheduled to be released on December, Plaintiff s development slate for 0 includes The Brigands of Rattleborge and The General. The Brigands of Rattleborge, the blacklist s number one script of 00, is a western revenge story and The General is a gritty look at the story of George Washington. The Defendants Target Plaintiff s Systems and Harass its Employees and Business Partners. Beginning on or about July 0, 0, Plaintiff became the victim of a campaign of harassment and business disparagement conducted by Defendants.

4 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0. Starting on at least that date, Plaintiff s employees began receiving mass s, consisting of defamatory blog postings or reports alleging improper activities allegedly connected with Plaintiff, often accompanied by sensational or offensive subject lines.. Plaintiff s employees receiving these mass s included those who had purely internal addresses and no public functions. Many of these employees internal addresses are not publically disseminated, and obtaining these addresses would require non-public information on Plaintiff s employee roster and internal communications.. Upon information and belief, on an unknown date prior to July 0, 0, Defendants unlawfully and without permission obtained access to Plaintiff s computer systems, and used that unauthorized access to, among other things, collect non-public information on Plaintiff s business operations, employee lists, and internal communications.. Defendants then used this misappropriated information to construct a distribution list, which they have used to repeatedly Plaintiff s staff with harassing and defamatory communications. Defendants executed this intrusion and scheme in support of their campaign to damage Plaintiff s operations by intimidating and demoralizing its employees.. Defendants have also sent identical or nearly-identical s to third parties that do business with Plaintiff. For example, Defendants sent a harassing e- mail to a producer and talent agent who has continued business dealings with Plaintiff.. These harassing s have originated from a series of accounts using a free web-based service. A review of publicly-available sources returned no references to any of these addresses or their associated information, suggesting that they were recently created. Upon information and

5 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 belief, these accounts were created solely for the purpose of directing harassing mass s at Plaintiff s employees and business partners.. When Plaintiff s information technology staff blocked these harassing s, they began arriving from a different newly-created address. When that address was blocked in turn, yet another new address was used to send the same mass s to Plaintiff s employees and business partners.. These mass s have had the effect of intimidating Plaintiff s employees and disrupting Plaintiff s business operations. Plaintiff has been forced to retain information security consultants and expend increased resources on this cat-and-mouse game attempting to block the daily harassment. 0. At this time it is unclear what other non-public information, if any, Defendants accessed or downloaded from Plaintiff s computer systems without authorization. Plaintiff s Advisor Receives Threatening Phone Calls from Defendants. At the same time Plaintiff s employees were targeted by daily harassing s, one of Plaintiff s outside advisors was also threatened by Defendants.. Victim- is a senior executive of a company that advises Plaintiff on various matters, including with respect to operations and financial management.. On or about July, 0, Victim- began to receive threatening phone calls by Defendants on a phone number Victim- uses to conduct business with, among others, Plaintiff. These calls occurred in the middle of the night, often between AM and AM and have continued on a near-daily basis.. In the first such call, a John Doe defendant pretended to be a former co-worker of Victim-. Victim- initially believed this ruse, and revealed where Victim- was travelling on business. In subsequent calls, the John Doe defendant did not identify himself, and warned Victim- to stay away from an executive of Plaintiff.

6 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0. Upon information and belief, at the same time Victim- was receiving these threatening phone calls, Victim- was also being physically surveilled. Victim- observed individuals following Victim-, which was confirmed by a driver that Victim- hired.. These nightly calls threatening Victim-, along with the surveillance of Victim- s activities, have had the effect of intimidating Victim- and hindering Victim- s ability to work with Plaintiff and provide advice to the company, thus impeding Plaintiff s operations.. In most instances, any identifying information for the calls to Victim- has been blocked. In one instance, the call appeared (because of the originating location) to originate from a number that was false, or spoofed. Spoofing is a technique whereby calls or texts appear to originate from a false or random source, masking the actual caller s identity.. On information and belief, Victim- s non-public work phone number would have been available to Defendants through unauthorized access to the systems of Plaintiff.. By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to identify the John/Jane Doe Defendants and hold them responsible for their illegal conduct in violation of U.S. and California law. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, U.S.C. 00) Against All Defendants 0. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs - as if fully set forth. Plaintiff s computer systems are used in interstate and foreign commerce and communication, including for the production of Plaintiff s films, which are distributed throughout the world.

7 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0. In or about July 0, Defendants intentionally accessed Plaintiff s computer systems without authorization and exceeded authorized access, and thereby obtained information from a protected computer, including the non-public addresses of Plaintiff s employees.. Defendants then used this improperly-obtained information to intimidate and harass Plaintiff s employees with mass s.. Plaintiff has incurred damages aggregating at least $,000 in value during a -year period as a result of Defendants conduct, having been forced to conduct security remediation, hire computer security consultants, and continually respond to Defendants harassing campaign. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT, CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 0) Against All Defendants. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs - as if fully set forth. Defendants knowingly, and without permission, accessed Plaintiff s computer systems and copied, downloaded, and/or used data on Plaintiff s computers and servers.. Defendants did so with the intention of wrongfully obtaining Plaintiff s data, and for the purposes of threatening, harassing, and deceiving Plaintiff, Plaintiff s employees, and Plaintiff s current and prospective business partners.. Plaintiff has incurred damages aggregating at least $,000 in value during a -year period as a result of Defendants conduct, having been forced to conduct security remediation, hire computer security consultants, and continually respond to Defendants harassing campaign.

8 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS) Against All Defendants. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs - as if fully set forth 0. Defendants have intentionally used improper and illegal means in an attempt to damage Plaintiff s business operations and prospective economic advantages.. Defendants accessed Plaintiff s computer systems without authorization and by exceeding authorized access, and through this obtained nonpublic business information, including the identities of Plaintiff s employees. Defendants then used this information to harass and demoralize Plaintiff s employees and outside business partners, and threated Plaintiff s outside advisers.. Defendants intended that their conduct would damage Plaintiff s prospective business relations, including with the third party business partners that were the recipients of Defendants harassing s. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INVASION OF PRIVACY) Against All Defendants. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs - as if fully set forth. Plaintiff, including its officers and employees, has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to nonpublic information maintained on its computer systems.. Defendants, by unlawfully accessing Plaintiff s computer systems, have improperly invaded that expectation of privacy. Defendants have compounded this harm by using that non-public information to harass Plaintiff s employees and business partners, disrupt its operations, and threaten its advisor.

9 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (STALKING UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 0.) Against All Defendants. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs - as if fully set forth. Defendants engaged in a pattern of conduct with the intent of alarming or harassing Plaintiff s employees and advisers, and in particular, Victim-.. Defendants knowingly and willfully directed electronic communications at Victim- for the purpose of alarming, tormenting, or terrorizing Victim-, and these communications served no legitimate purpose.. Defendants communications included credible threats against Victim- through electronic devices, including computers and telephone communications. 0. As a result of this pattern of conduct, Plaintiff s employees and advisers, including Victim-, reasonably feared for their physical safety and suffered emotional distress. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the Court enter judgment as follows: A. For compensatory damages; B. For declaratory relief; C. For all costs and fees incurred in prosecuting this Complaint; D. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable in this action.

10 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 Page ID #:0 0 0 Dated: July, 0 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Karen Paik Karen Paik (SBN ) 0 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 0 Santa Monica, California 00 Telephone: Facsimile: 0--0 Matthew L. Schwartz (phv appl. to be submitted) Dan G. Boyle (phv appl. to be submitted) Lexington Avenue New York, New York 00 Telephone: --00 Facsimile: --0 Attorneys for Red Granite Pictures, Inc.