Global Refining Group, Inc. v. PMD Analysis Inc.

Background

Global Refining Group, Inc. brought the first action against PMD Analysis Inc., also known as Analyse PMD Inc., Robert Turcotte, and Monica Armstrong. Global asserted, among other claims, violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Turcotte later brought a separate action against Global concerning an agreement; that action was transferred to the Southern District of New York, and Global asserted counterclaims.

A bench trial had been scheduled for February 2023. On October 26, 2022, the court allowed the defendants’ attorneys to withdraw because the defendants had failed to communicate with or pay them. The opinion states that the defendants had not contacted the court since before the withdrawal motion and had not responded to repeated orders. The Clerk entered certificates of default on Global’s claims and counterclaims on December 7, 2022.

Global then moved for default judgment, a permanent injunction, and dismissal of the defendants’ remaining claims. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended granting default judgment on two claims in the first action, awarding $20,197,500 in statutory damages, issuing a permanent injunction, and dismissing Global’s remaining claims. For the second action, she recommended denying default on Global’s counterclaims and granting Global’s request to dismiss Turcotte’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders.

Review of the Recommendations

The parties received the report and recommendation and were warned that objections had to be filed within 14 days. No party filed an objection. Judge Rochon therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. She found the report’s reasoning and conclusions thorough, sound, and grounded in fact and law, and found no clear error.

Rulings in the Global Action

The court adopted the report in its entirety and granted Global’s motion for default judgment. It entered judgment on Counts I and VII of the first amended complaint, identified as claims for breach of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, respectively, in favor of Global and against PMD Analysis Inc., Robert Turcotte, and Monica Armstrong.

The court awarded Global $20,197,500 in statutory damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The damages were assessed jointly and severally against all defendants, meaning each defendant was responsible for the full amount subject to the usual rules governing collection, and the award included post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.

The court also permanently restrained and enjoined the defendants and anyone acting together with them from collecting, reverse-engineering, copying, duplicating, sharing, reposting, republishing, or otherwise disseminating data, information, or images obtained or derived from Global’s website or application, whether in original or modified form. Global’s remaining claims in the first action were dismissed.

Rulings in the Turcotte Action

As to the related action, the court stated that Global’s motion was denied in part and granted in part. The court denied Global’s motion for default on its counterclaims and granted Global’s motion under Rule 41(b) to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court ordered that all claims in that action be dismissed.

The opinion’s caption and earlier references identify the related action as Case No. 1:21-cv-09182 (JLR) (BCM), but the final ruling refers once to Case No. 21-cv-09812. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy. The clerk was directed to enter judgment consistent with the order and close both cases. The court also stated that the absence of timely objections, after clear notice of the consequences, precluded appellate review of the decision.