DHI Group, Inc. et al v. Kent, Jr. et al

Filing 279

ORDER ADOPTING 278 Memorandum and Recommendations GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 228 Opposed MOTION for Summary Judgment on Oilpro's Counterclaims, GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 231 MOTION for Summary Judgment , DENYING 227 Opposed MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Trade Secrets Claims Against Kent and Oilpro. (Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DHI GROUP, INC. f/k/a DICE HOLDINGS, INC.
and RIGZONE.COM, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID W. KENT, JR. SINGLE INTEGRATED
OPERATIONS PORTAL, INC. d/b/a OILPRO
and OILPRO.COM, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-16-1670

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) in which the
Magistrate Judge recommends denying the affirmative motion for partial summary judgment filed
by plaintiffs DHI Group, Inc. f/k/a Dice Holdings, Inc. and Rigzone.com, Inc. (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) (Dkt. 227), granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment on the counterclaims of defendants Single Integrated Operations Portal, Inc. d/b/a Oilpro
and OILPRO.com (“Oilpro”) (Dkt. 228), and granting in part and denying in part Oilpro and
defendant David W. Kent, Jr.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 231). Dkt. 278. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R. “When no timely objection
is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Notes.
The court has reviewed the record and filed no clear error. Accordingly, the M&R (Dkt. 278) is
ADOPTED IN FULL.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ affirmative motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 227) is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Oilpro’s counterclaims (Dkt. 228) is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to Oilpro’s counterclaims for
tortious interference with prospective business relations, violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1051
and Texas common law. These counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment on Oilpro’s counterclaims is otherwise DENIED.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 231) in GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act
claims related to the Google analytics data and internet search techniques; (2) Plaintiffs’ cause of
action for violations of the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records
Access Act; (3) Plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim pursuant to
Section 1962(a); and (3) Plaintiffs’ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Texas Harmful Access by
Computer Act, and misappropriation of confidential information claims.

These claims are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is otherwise
DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on August 8, 2019.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
Senior United States District Judge

2