Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Emc Corporation v. Pure Storage, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 19, 2016

EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
PURE STORAGE, INC., Defendant.

          EMC Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Paul D. Popeo, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Anita M.C. Spieth, Choate, Hall & Stewart, G. Mark Edgarton, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Kevin C. Quigley, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Margaret E. Ives, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Matthew B. Arnould, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Matthew S. Barrett, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Michael H. Bunis, Choate, Hall & Stewart & William M. Unsworth, Choate, Hall & Stewart.

          Pure Storage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam S. Gershenson, Cooley LLP, Dana Moss, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Karr, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pavane Kenter, Colley LLP, pro hac vice, Kraig Jennett, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Sheetz, Cooley LLP & Stephen C. Neal, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

          Frank Nunley, Movant, represented by T. Christopher Donnelly, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP & Brendan T. St. Amant, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP.

          Jeremy LeBlanc, Movant, represented by T. Christopher Donnelly, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP & Brendan T. St. Amant, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP.

          Brian O'Shea, Movant, represented by T. Christopher Donnelly, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP & Brendan T. St. Amant, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP.

          Elliott Management Corporation, Movant, represented by David L. Evans, Murphy & King, PC, David Parker, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C., pro hac vice, Joshua K. Bromberg, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C., pro hac vice & Shawn Lu, Murphy & King, PC.

          Pure Storage, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Adam S. Gershenson, Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Karr, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pavane Kenter, Colley LLP, pro hac vice, Kraig Jennett, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Sheetz, Cooley LLP & Stephen C. Neal, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

          EMC Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Paul D. Popeo, Choate, Hall & Stewart, G. Mark Edgarton, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Kevin C. Quigley, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Margaret E. Ives, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP & Michael H. Bunis, Choate, Hall & Stewart.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION OF PURE STORAGE, INC. FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          JUDITH GAIL DEIN, Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the court on "Pure Storage's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on EMC's Claims" (Docket No. 329). By this motion, Pure Storage is seeking summary judgment on EMC's claims of common law misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets (Count I) and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, §§ 42 and 42A (Count II). Pure Storage has also moved for summary judgment on EMC's claim of violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2 and 11 (Count VII). After fully considering all of the arguments raised by the parties in their written submissions and oral arguments, and for the reasons detailed herein, the motion is DENIED with respect to the trade secret claims (Counts I and II) but ALLOWED as to the 93A claim (Count VII).

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW

         "The role of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" PC Interiors, Ltd. v. J. Tucci Constr. Co., 794 F.Supp.2d 274, 275 (D. Mass. 2011) (quoting Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991)) (additional citation omitted). The burden is on the moving party to show, based upon the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "[A]n issue is genuine' if it may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.'" Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990)). "A fact is material' only if it possesses the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law." Id . (quotations, punctuation and citations omitted).

         "Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine, triable issue." PC Interiors, Ltd., 794 F.Supp.2d at 275. The opposing party can avoid summary judgment only by providing properly supported evidence of disputed material facts. LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841-42 (1st Cir. 1993). Accordingly, "the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading[, ]'" but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id . (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

         In reviewing the evidence, the court must examine "the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[] all reasonable inferences in his favor[.]" Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 2000). "In the final analysis, " the court must "determine if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.