Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionLong-Arm JurisdictionDue Processpersonal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionlong-arm statuteremote computer access

Facts

MacDermid is headquartered in Waterbury, Connecticut, and stores its proprietary and confidential electronic data on servers located there. Deiter lived and worked in Canada for MacDermid's Canadian subsidiary, and employees were made aware as a condition of employment that the companies' email system and confidential information were housed in Waterbury. Before her termination, Deiter allegedly forwarded confidential MacDermid files from her company email account to her personal email account, and to obtain and send those files she had to access MacDermid's Waterbury servers. Deiter had also agreed in writing to safeguard MacDermid's confidential information and was not authorized to transfer it to a personal email account.

Issue

Whether Connecticut courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Canadian defendant who, while physically outside Connecticut, allegedly accessed computer servers located in Connecticut to obtain and email her employer's confidential files. More specifically, the question was whether such conduct falls within Connecticut's long-arm statute and whether exercising jurisdiction would satisfy due process.

Rule

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(5), a nonresident is subject to Connecticut long-arm jurisdiction if she uses a computer or computer network located within the state, and the statute requires only that the computer or network be located in Connecticut, not the user. Consistent with due process, specific jurisdiction exists when the defendant purposefully directs her activities at the forum, the litigation arises out of or relates to those activities, and the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under the five-factor fairness inquiry.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz lives in Phoenix and works for Desert North Analytics, a subsidiary of Hartford-based Elm Harbor Systems. Knowing that Elm Harbor stores its email platform and confidential design files on servers in Connecticut, Lena logs in from Arizona and forwards restricted files from her work account to her personal account without authorization.

If Elm Harbor sues Lena in Connecticut federal court and the only asserted statutory basis is Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(5), is Connecticut long-arm jurisdiction most likely proper?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, § 52-59b(a)(5) is satisfied when a nonresident uses a computer or computer network located in Connecticut. The statute focuses on the location of the computer or network used, not the location of the user. A server qualifies as a computer under the incorporated statutory definition, so remote access to known Connecticut servers constitutes use of a computer in Connecticut. (Derived from MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter (n.d.).)