STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT SOMERSET, ss. Location: Skowhegan Docket No.: 08-CV -160' \,' (' < i".:> ,_ " -\.-- " / '. -) /_. r.
Clyde Dyar,
Plaintiff, DECISION AND JUDGMENT v.
Gregory Goulette, and Multi Media Computer Services, Inc.,
Defendants
This matter was heard on Plaintiff's Complaint on May 19,2008. Attorney David Van Dyke represented the Plaintiff. Defendant Gregory Goulette appeared pro se. Through his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages as the result of Defendants' alleged negligence and conversion in connection with information that Plaintiff claims is proprietary information.
Findings of Fact Based on the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff worked as a consultant in the area of economic development.
2. In 2006 & 2007, Plaintiff provided economic development consultant services for the Town of Fairfield. Plaintiff provided the services pursuant to a contract with the Town.
3. In connection with Plaintiff's work for the Town of Fairfield, the Town provided Plaintiff with a computer and an office. The office was located in the Teague Center in Fairfield. 4. The Town of Fairfield assigned Laura Guite, an employee of the Town, to provide administrative assistance to Plaintiff. The Town supplied Ms. Guite with a computer for use in connection with her employment with the Town, including her work with Plaintiff.
5. While he was working for the Town of Fairfield, Plaintiff provided consulting services for other entities.
6. Plaintiff maintained personal business information, including his "business contacts", on the Town-supplied computer. Ms. Guite had access to Plaintiff's personal business information through her computer.
7. In 2006, the Town Manager of Fairfield retained Defendant Gregory Goulette to make a copy of all of the information on Plaintiff's computer. Defendant Goulette made the requested copy. At the time, Defendant Goulette was affiliated with Defendant Multi Media Computer Services, Inc.
8. In 2007, after the Town had relocated Ms. Guite to the Town Office, Ms. Guite learned that all of the information on Plaintiff's computer, including his personal business information, was on the Town's server. Town employees with access to the Town's server could access Plaintiff's personal business information.
9. Plaintiff no longer works for the Town of Fairfield, and currently has no municipal contracts.
Discussion Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Gregory Goulette, while affiliated with Defendant Multi Media Computer Services, Inc., breached the standard of care for a professional in the computer service business by making a copy of information without the permission of the owner of the information. Plaintiff also contends that when he copied the information, Defendant Goulette converted the information. Finally, Plaintiff argues that because the information that Defendant Goulette copied included proprietary business information, he has lost business as the result of the public dissemination the information.
Although Plaintiff testified that he has less work now than before he learned that his information had b.een copied, he has failed to prove that the downturn in his business is related to Defendants' actions. Because Plaintiff has failed to prove that he suffered damage as the result of Defendant Goulette's actions, the Court does not have to determine whether Defendant Goulette breached the applicable standard of care, or whether his actions constitute conversion. 1
Plaintiff's claim fails in part because the Court is unconvinced that the information was disseminated to the general public. In fact, Ms. Guite, who had knowledge of the information before it was placed on the Town's server, is the only person who testified to viewing the information on the Town's server. At most, the few employees of the Town of Fairfield who could access to the server have been exposed to the information. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the placement of the information on the server impacted Plaintiff's business opportunities. The fact that Plaintiff now has fewer accounts, without more, is insufficient to establish a causal relationship between Defendant's actions and the economic loss for which Plaintiff seeks to recover.
In short, on this record, the Court can only speculate as to how, if at all, access to the information by Town employees or any members of the public has damaged Plaintiff. The Court cannot base a damage award on speculation. See, Hood v. Mercier, 523 A.2d 572, 575 (Me. 1987); Michaud v. Sleekino, 390 A.2d 524, 530 (Me. 1978). Because Plaintiff has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant Goulette's actions caused damage to Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot prevail on his Complaint.
I Whether Defendant Goulette, acting at the direction of the Town Manager, could make a copy of the
information contained on a Town-owned computer, without the permission of the user of the computer, was a central issue in dispute. Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiff has failed to establish a causal connection between Defendant Goulette's actions and the economic loss for which he seeks to recover, the Court does not have to reach this issue. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court enters judgment In favor of the Defendants.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a) , the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Judgment into the docket by reference. CLYDE DYAR - PLAINTIFF DISTRICT COURT SKOWHEGAN Attorney for: CLYDE DYAR Docket No SKODC-CV-2008-00160 DAVID J VAN DYKE - RETAINED OS/16/2008 HORNBLOWER LYNCH RABASCO & VANDYKE 261 ASH STREET DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 116 LEWISTON ME 04243-0116
vs GREGORY GOULETTE - DEFENDANT PO BOX 2908, WATERVILLE ME 04903 MULTI MEDIA COMPUTER SERVICES INC - DEFENDANT PO BOX 2908, WATERVILLE ME 04903
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Filing Date: OS/16/2008
Docket Events: OS/16/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON OS/16/2008
OS/28/2008 Party(s): CLYDE DYAR ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON OS/16/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID J VAN DYKE
OS/28/2008 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON OS/28/2008 ROCHELLE ANN DODGE , ASSISTANT CLERK-E
06/11/2008 Party(s): MULTI MEDIA COMPUTER SERVICES INC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON OS/27/2008 TO WILLIAM DUBORD
06/12/2008 Party(s): GREGORY GOULETTE RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 06/09/2008
07/02/2008 Party(s): GREGORY GOULETTE SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON OS/22/2008
07/08/2008 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 07/07/2008 CHARLES C LAVERDIERE , JUDGE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
07/08/2008 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 09/01/2008
09/03/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/14/2008 @ 10:30 in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/03/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 09/03/2008 ROCHELLE ANN DODGE , ASSISTANT CLERK-E
10/lS/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON 10/14/2008 RAE ANN FRENCH, JUDGE Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 06/03/2009 SKODC-CV-2008-00160 DOCKET RECORD
10/15/2008 ORDER - PRETRIAL/STATUS ENTERED ON 10/14/2008 RAE ANN FRENCH, JUDGE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT SOMERSET, ss. Location: Skowhegan Docket No.: 08-CV -160' \,' (' < i".:> ,_ " -\.-- " / '. -) /_. r.
Clyde Dyar,
Plaintiff, DECISION AND JUDGMENT v.
Gregory Goulette, and Multi Media Computer Services, Inc.,
Defendants
This matter was heard on Plaintiff's Complaint on May 19,2008. Attorney David Van Dyke represented the Plaintiff. Defendant Gregory Goulette appeared pro se. Through his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages as the result of Defendants' alleged negligence and conversion in connection with information that Plaintiff claims is proprietary information.
Findings of Fact Based on the evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff worked as a consultant in the area of economic development.
2. In 2006 & 2007, Plaintiff provided economic development consultant services for the Town of Fairfield. Plaintiff provided the services pursuant to a contract with the Town.
3. In connection with Plaintiff's work for the Town of Fairfield, the Town provided Plaintiff with a computer and an office. The office was located in the Teague Center in Fairfield. 4. The Town of Fairfield assigned Laura Guite, an employee of the Town, to provide administrative assistance to Plaintiff. The Town supplied Ms. Guite with a computer for use in connection with her employment with the Town, including her work with Plaintiff.
5. While he was working for the Town of Fairfield, Plaintiff provided consulting services for other entities.
6. Plaintiff maintained personal business information, including his "business contacts", on the Town-supplied computer. Ms. Guite had access to Plaintiff's personal business information through her computer.
7. In 2006, the Town Manager of Fairfield retained Defendant Gregory Goulette to make a copy of all of the information on Plaintiff's computer. Defendant Goulette made the requested copy. At the time, Defendant Goulette was affiliated with Defendant Multi Media Computer Services, Inc.
8. In 2007, after the Town had relocated Ms. Guite to the Town Office, Ms. Guite learned that all of the information on Plaintiff's computer, including his personal business information, was on the Town's server. Town employees with access to the Town's server could access Plaintiff's personal business information.
9. Plaintiff no longer works for the Town of Fairfield, and currently has no municipal contracts.
Discussion Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Gregory Goulette, while affiliated with Defendant Multi Media Computer Services, Inc., breached the standard of care for a professional in the computer service business by making a copy of information without the permission of the owner of the information. Plaintiff also contends that when he copied the information, Defendant Goulette converted the information. Finally, Plaintiff argues that because the information that Defendant Goulette copied included proprietary business information, he has lost business as the result of the public dissemination the information.
Although Plaintiff testified that he has less work now than before he learned that his information had b.een copied, he has failed to prove that the downturn in his business is related to Defendants' actions. Because Plaintiff has failed to prove that he suffered damage as the result of Defendant Goulette's actions, the Court does not have to determine whether Defendant Goulette breached the applicable standard of care, or whether his actions constitute conversion. 1
Plaintiff's claim fails in part because the Court is unconvinced that the information was disseminated to the general public. In fact, Ms. Guite, who had knowledge of the information before it was placed on the Town's server, is the only person who testified to viewing the information on the Town's server. At most, the few employees of the Town of Fairfield who could access to the server have been exposed to the information. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the placement of the information on the server impacted Plaintiff's business opportunities. The fact that Plaintiff now has fewer accounts, without more, is insufficient to establish a causal relationship between Defendant's actions and the economic loss for which Plaintiff seeks to recover.
In short, on this record, the Court can only speculate as to how, if at all, access to the information by Town employees or any members of the public has damaged Plaintiff. The Court cannot base a damage award on speculation. See, Hood v. Mercier, 523 A.2d 572, 575 (Me. 1987); Michaud v. Sleekino, 390 A.2d 524, 530 (Me. 1978). Because Plaintiff has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant Goulette's actions caused damage to Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot prevail on his Complaint.
I Whether Defendant Goulette, acting at the direction of the Town Manager, could make a copy of the
information contained on a Town-owned computer, without the permission of the user of the computer, was a central issue in dispute. Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiff has failed to establish a causal connection between Defendant Goulette's actions and the economic loss for which he seeks to recover, the Court does not have to reach this issue. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court enters judgment In favor of the Defendants.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a) , the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Judgment into the docket by reference. CLYDE DYAR - PLAINTIFF DISTRICT COURT SKOWHEGAN Attorney for: CLYDE DYAR Docket No SKODC-CV-2008-00160 DAVID J VAN DYKE - RETAINED OS/16/2008 HORNBLOWER LYNCH RABASCO & VANDYKE 261 ASH STREET DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 116 LEWISTON ME 04243-0116
vs GREGORY GOULETTE - DEFENDANT PO BOX 2908, WATERVILLE ME 04903 MULTI MEDIA COMPUTER SERVICES INC - DEFENDANT PO BOX 2908, WATERVILLE ME 04903
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Filing Date: OS/16/2008
Docket Events: OS/16/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON OS/16/2008
OS/28/2008 Party(s): CLYDE DYAR ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON OS/16/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID J VAN DYKE
OS/28/2008 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON OS/28/2008 ROCHELLE ANN DODGE , ASSISTANT CLERK-E
06/11/2008 Party(s): MULTI MEDIA COMPUTER SERVICES INC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON OS/27/2008 TO WILLIAM DUBORD
06/12/2008 Party(s): GREGORY GOULETTE RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 06/09/2008
07/02/2008 Party(s): GREGORY GOULETTE SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON OS/22/2008
07/08/2008 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 07/07/2008 CHARLES C LAVERDIERE , JUDGE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
07/08/2008 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 09/01/2008
09/03/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/14/2008 @ 10:30 in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/03/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 09/03/2008 ROCHELLE ANN DODGE , ASSISTANT CLERK-E
10/lS/2008 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON 10/14/2008 RAE ANN FRENCH, JUDGE Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 06/03/2009 SKODC-CV-2008-00160 DOCKET RECORD
10/15/2008 ORDER - PRETRIAL/STATUS ENTERED ON 10/14/2008 RAE ANN FRENCH, JUDGE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
10/16/2008 Party(s): CLYDE DYAR OTHER FILING - WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST FILED ON 10/15/2008 Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID J VAN DYKE
11/14/2008 Party(s): GREGORY GOULETTE OTHER FILING - WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST FILED ON 10/31/2008
11/18/2008 ORDER - ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ENTERED ON 11/17/2008 JAMES MACMICHAEL , JUDGE SKOSC
11/18/2008 ORDER - ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT SENT ON 11/18/2008 BONNIE MILLER, ASSISTANT CLERK-E
11/21/2008 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON 11/19/2005 SKOSC
11/21/2008 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 11/21/2008 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
01/12/2009 HEARING - PRETRIAL/STATUS SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 02/02/2009 @ 1:30 SKOSC
01/12/2009 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 02/06/2009 SKOSC ON A TRAILING LIST FOR FEB. 6,9-13,17-20, AND 23-27,2009.
01/12/2009 HEARING - PRETRIAL/STATUS NOTICE SENT ON 01/12/2009
01/12/2009 TRIAL - BENCH NOTICE SENT ON 01/12/2009
01/28/2009 Party(s): CLYDE DYAR OTHER FILING - WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST FILED ON 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 OTHER FILING - STATEMENT OF TIME FOR TRIAL FILED ON 01/28/2009
02/02/2009 HEARING - PRETRIAL/STATUS NOT HELD ON 02/02/2009 JUSTICE JABAR RECUSES HIMSELF, DUE TO A CONFLICT WITH THE DEFENDANT
02/02/2009 TRIAL - BENCH NOT HELD ON 02/02/2009 . JUSTICE JABAR RECUSES
02/02/2009 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE RECUSED ON 02/02/2009 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
04/13/2009 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 05/07/2009 @ 8:30 SKOSC ON A TRAILING Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 06/03/2009 SKODC-CV-2008-00160 DOCKET RECORD
LIST WHICH RUNS MAY 8, 11-14, 18-22, 26-27, AND 29, 2009. THIS CASE IS BACK-UP TO THE CRIMINAL TRIAL LIST.
04/13/2009 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 05/05/2009 @ 1:30 SKOSC
04/17/2009 ORDER - PRETRIAL/STATUS ENTERED ON 04/15/2009 JOHN NIVISON, JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
05/07/2009 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 05/05/2009 DEFENDANT DID NOT CALL IN
05/07/2009 TRIAL - BENCH CONTINUED ON 05/07/2009
05/07/2009 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 05/19/2009 @ 8:30 SKOSC
05/07/2009 TRIAL - BENCH NOTICE SENT ON 05/07/2009
06/02/2009 TRIAL - BENCH HELD ON 05/19/2009 JOHN NIVISON, JUSTICE Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID J VAN DYKE Reporter: TAMMY DROUIN Defendant Present in Court
A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk
Page 3 of 3 Printed on: 06/03/2009