Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07669/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07669-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNIE HARRY BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES DOUGLAS NURMI,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:19-cv-07669-WHO 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE SECOND MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 23

Plaintiff John Harry Bailey alleges that defendant James Douglas Nurmi stole access to his 

company Thorium Cybersecurity’s online accounts with Google, Amazon, GitHub, and HubSpot

(the technology companies). I have issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that enjoins 

Nurmi from accessing, manipulating, altering, or destroying the source code and other confidential 

information in those accounts. See Dkt. Nos. 12, 18. On January 7, 2020 I denied Bailey’s 

motion for summary judgment without prejudice because he had not filed proof of service on 

Nurmi, who resides in Luxembourg. Dkt. No. 18. Bailey has since completed service in apparent 

compliance with the Hague Convention. See Dkt. No. 22. On January 8, 2020, I denied Bailey’s 

request that I add the technology companies to the TRO and order them to secure his company’s 

accounts because he had not named them as parties or served them. Dkt. No. 20. 

On February 4, 2020, Bailey filed a second motion for summary judgment, requesting that 

I order the technology companies to “return control and ownership of said domains and accounts 

to their rightful owner the Plaintiff,” order Nurmi to repay 50,000 Euros that he collected from an 

accelerator on behalf of Thorium, and order Nurmi to pay Thorium $250,000 in lost revenue and 

damages. Dkt. No. 23. As I have noted before, Bailey has neither named nor served the 

technology companies; I thus lack authority to order them to do anything. As far as the relief 

Case 3:19-cv-07669-WHO Document 26 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Bailey seeks against Nurmi, Bailey will need to move for entry of default by the Clerk and then 

for a judgment of default by me. To be entitled to default judgment, he will need to provide 

significant additional information about the facts and an accounting of the damages he allegedly 

suffered. And he will not be able to proceed on Thorium’s behalf because Thorium is not a named 

plaintiff; further, if it is a corporation it must be represented by counsel. 

I referred Bailey for appointment of pro bono counsel on January 14, 2020, and the Federal 

Pro Bono Project continues to work to identify counsel. See Dkt. No. 21. I recommend that 

Bailey also keep looking for counsel and that he stay in contact with the attorneys he has spoken 

with from Federal Pro Bono Project. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2020 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07669-WHO Document 26 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2