IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUS CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST (AGT)
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 105
Perhaps because the undersigned previously concluded that CareHub is relevant to
damages (dkt. 96 at 1), RTZ chose not to respond to authorities cited by Intus in a more
recent joint letter brief, dkt. 105 at 5, which cast doubt on RTZ’s CareHub misappropriation
theory of damages. See Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th Cir.
2019) (“[T]he CFAA is ‘an antihacking statute,’ not ‘an expansive misappropriation statute.’
The statute’s ‘loss’ definition . . . limits its focus to harms caused by computer intrusions,
not general injuries unrelated to the hacking itself.”) (citation omitted); Heiting v. Taro
Pharms. USA, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (“CDAFA’s private right
of action contemplates some damage to the computer system, network, program, or data
contained on that computer . . . .”); WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., 472 F. Supp. 3d
649, 685 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (explaining that “consequential economic damages” are not
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 111 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
available for trespass to chattels).
In view of these cases, RTZ’s discovery requests related to CareHub, which appear
to seek considerable discovery in support of a misappropriation theory of damages, may be
disproportionate to the needs of the case. Before reaching that determination, the Court will
give RTZ an opportunity to respond and to identify the legal basis for its CareHub damages
theories. RTZ may file a supplemental two-page letter brief by April 17, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 111 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2