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

Background

The judgment covers two actions. In the first, Global Refining Group, Inc. sued PMD Analysis Inc., also known as Analyse PMD Inc., Robert Turcotte, and Monica Armstrong. In the second, Robert Turcotte, doing business as Premium Catalytic Converter Refining, sued Global. The judgment states that the court adopted in its entirety a report discussed in a memorandum opinion and order dated September 5, 2023.

Rulings in the Global action

The court granted Global’s motion for default judgment. It entered judgment for Global and against all three defendants on Counts I and VII of the first amended complaint, identified as claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

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 could be responsible for the full amount, subject to the rules governing joint and several liability. The award also carries post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.

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

Rulings in the Turcotte action

Global’s motion in the Turcotte action was denied in part and granted in part. The court denied Global’s motion for default judgment on its counterclaims. The court granted Global’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The judgment states that all claims in the Turcotte action were therefore dismissed.

Appellate review and case status

The judgment states that the parties’ failure to make timely objections, despite clear notice in the report, prevented appellate review of the decision. Judgment was entered for Global consistent with the order, and both cases were closed.

The text provided does not identify an individual judge. It names Ruby J. Krajick as the clerk who dated and signed the judgment, but does not state that she was the judge who issued the underlying ruling.