Software delfino dating
Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. Buffington informed Special Agent Wells of Agilent's findings. Rptr.2d 703.) Courts have broadly interpreted the term “interactive computer service” under the CDA.
The appeal is one that properly lies from a judgment entered upon an order granting summary judgment. On August 12, Buffington and Agilent's Management Support Consultant, Stephanie Pierce, met with Moore “to obtain Moore's side of the story and to administer a stern warning.” Buffington declared that after Pierce explained what Agilent knew, Moore apologized for involving Agilent “but denied sending any threats through the use of Agilent systems.” (Original underscore.) He stated that he had promised in writing that he would not engage in any further similar conduct and thereafter provided Agilent with a copy of his letter to the United States Attorney.
We hold further that plaintiffs did not make a prima facie showing to support a claim against Agilent under theories of ratification, respondeat superior, or negligent supervision and/or retention. Rptr.2d 145 [de novo review of “whether a triable issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law”]; Chavez v. On July 29, Buffington telephoned Special Agent Wells to introduce himself and to indicate that Agilent would cooperate fully with the FBI.
We therefore find that summary judgment in favor of Agilent was proper and will affirm. Special Agent Wells stated that he “was investigating some e[-]mail traffic, some of which the FBI suspected might [have been] sent by an Agilent employee.” Buffington asked for details but was told that Special Agent Wells had obtained information through a grand jury proceeding and could not discuss any specifics.
Plaintiffs brought suit against Moore and his former employer, Agilent Technologies, Inc. Agilent moved for summary judgment on various grounds, and the trial court granted the motion on the basis that Agilent was immune from suit under the Communications Decency Act of 1996(CDA).
These e-mails and postings were ultimately traced to Cameron Moore.
Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion The evidence presented in opposition to the summary judgment motion primarily consisted of excerpts from transcripts of the depositions of plaintiffs and several Agilent employees, the arrest affidavit, and documents concerning Moore's sentencing. (b)(4): “It is the policy of the United States-[¶] ․ [¶] (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material.”) Thus, section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. 2.)The Fourth Circuit concluded that the CDA provided AOL (as an interactive computer service provider) with immunity from the plaintiff's claims.
For instance, plaintiffs claimed a dispute existed regarding UMF number 7-i.e., that on July 30, the FBI neither told Agilent that threats had been sent through Agilent's computer system nor provided it with the contents of any e-mail the FBI was investigating. 331) applicable to all interactive computer service providers, irrespective of whether they were publishers or distributors of the alleged defamatory matter authored by the information content provider.
But plaintiffs' cited evidence consisted of improperly spliced, separate excerpts of Buffington's declaration and the arrest affidavit.
Plaintiffs alleged further that Agilent was aware that Moore was using its computer system to threaten plaintiffs and that it took no action to prevent its employee from continuing to make his threats over the Internet. After completing this work, Rolfe e-mailed Buffington on July 30 with the results.
Plaintiffs alleged that the anonymous threats against them occurred between April and July 2002, while an appeal was pending in unrelated litigation brought by plaintiffs' former employer, Varian Medical Systems (and others), against plaintiffs. Buffington telephoned Special Agent Wells on July 30 and advised that Agilent had identified the user of the IP address. Supp.2d 1037, 1044 [term is “broadly defined” under the statute].) Thus, there are a number of examples of the expansive application of “interactive computer service” in determining CDA immunity.