Exhibit ‘C’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 21
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 21
2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2

Background......................................................................................................................... 3

Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 7

Argument ............................................................................................................................ 8

I. Defendants’ Deployment of Phishing Links and Malicious Scripts Against Plaintiffs 

Establishes Defendants’ CFAA Violations..................................................................................... 8

A. Defendant DFC’s Willful Failure to Produce ..................................................... 10

II. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment as to Malicious Prosecution ........... 11

A. Dr. Guerra Admits to Taking the DFC Phase I Report to the Police .................. 11

III. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the CFAA Counts...................... 13

A. Unauthorized Access under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(2)(C) ..................................... 14

B. Unauthorized Damage under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(5)(A) ................................... 15

C. Unauthorized Access and Reckless Damage Under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(5)(B) 16

D. Unauthorized Access Causing Damage and Loss under 18 U.S.C. §1030 

(a)(5)(C) Exceeds the Statutory Amount of $5000................................................................... 17

E. Defendants Conspired on all CFAA Causes of Action....................................... 17

IV. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the Texas State Computer Law 

Claims ................................................................................................................................. 18

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 18

Certificate of Service ........................................................................................................ 20

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 21
3

Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu file this Supplemental Motion for 

Summary Judgment, as newly produced evidence from Defendants of their phishing campaign 

and use of malicious scripts against Plaintiffs warrants relief.

Background

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants under the 

Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Texas’s statutes covering unauthorized access to 

computers, as well as the Texas state tort of malicious prosecution.1 Defendants jointly conspired 

to engage in the malicious prosecution of Defendant Melody Joy Cantu as well as the stalking 

and harassment of both Plaintiffs through a campaign of hacking, phishing, and surveillance in 

violation of federal and Texas law.2

Defendant Dr. Sandra Guerra hired Defendant Digital Forensics Corporation (“DFC”) to 

hack, investigate and surveil Plaintiffs.3 As part of this conspiracy, DFC produced a “Phase I”

1

(1) Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(c); (2) Unauthorized Damage to a 

Protected Computer 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A); (3) Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer Recklessly Causing 

Damage 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(B); (4) Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer Causing Damage And Loss 18 

U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(C); (5) Conspiracy to Commit Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer 18 U.S.C. 

1030(a)(2)(c) & 1030(b); (6) Conspiracy To Commit Unauthorized Damage to a Protected Computer 18 U.S.C. 

1030(a)(5)(A) & 1030(b); (7) Conspiracy To Commit Reckless Damage to a Protected Computer 18 U.S.C. 

1030(a)(5)(B) & 1030(b); (8) Conspiracy to Commit Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer Causing 

Damage And Loss 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(C) & 1030(b); (9) Knowingly Accessing Without Effective Consent a 

Computer, Computer Network, Or Computer System Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001 & Texas Penal Code § 

33.02(a); (10) Knowingly Accessing a Computer, Computer Network, or Computer System With The Intent to 

Defraud, or Harm Another or Alter, Damage, or Delete Property Without Effective Consent Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 

Code § 143.001 & Texas Penal Code § 33.02(b-1); (11) Electronic Access Interference Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 

Code § 143.001 & Texas Penal Code § 33.022; and (13) Malicious Prosecution.

2 See Dkt. 6, Am. Compl.

3 See e.g. Dkt. 110, Ex. A, BATES#: D 000060-61 (Aff. of Dr. Guerra stating she has retained DFC.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 21
4

report for Defendant Dr. Guerra.4 The Phase I report contained a sample affidavit written by 

DFC for use by Dr. Guerra to submit as part of a police report. DFC required the filing of the 

police report in order to do further work for Defendant and generate a “Phase II” report. 

Defendant Dr. Guerra admitted at deposition that the affidavit she submitted to the police was 

substantially written by DFC and not her.5 Moreover, the Phase I report and communications 

between DFC and Dr. Guerra reveal that DFC created tracking URLs deployed by Dr. Guerra 

against Plaintiffs.6 DFC’s belated production on November 11, 2022, was the first time that 

computer code containing evidence of these phishing links was produced to the Defense.7

The record establishes that Dr. Guerra and DFC phished Plaintiffs multiple times via text 

and email. DFC intentionally employed phishing links to gain access to Plaintiffs’ networks.8

The computer code produced by DFC on November 11, 2022, contains direct evidence of these 

phishing links as well as malicious code that allowed Defendants to improperly gain access to 

Plaintiffs’ computer systems. During the same time period, Plaintiffs discovered that someone 

spliced into their cable network with a coaxial splicer.9 At deposition, DFC’s expert Shawn 

4 See Dkt. 110, Ex. B, BATES#: GUERRA 000062-87 (DFC Phase I Report.

5 See Dkt. 110, Ex. C, Dep. of Dr. Guerra 45:16-46:3 (admitting she took a copy of DFC’s Phase I report to 

the San Antonio Police Department).

6 See e.g. Dkt. 110, Ex. D, BATES#: GUERRA 000340 (discussing URL tracking links deployed against 

Plaintiffs (marked confidential and subject to Protective Order, available for in camera review)).

7 See Ex. A.

8 See Dkt. 110, Ex. E, BATES#: D 000110-13 (phishing links sent to Plaintiffs by Dr. Guerra using fake 

email addresses).

9 See e.g. Dkt. 110, Ex. F, MCantuProd00193-206 (service appointment scheduling and billing from 

Spectrum Cable to identify the issue with Plaintiff’s internet network, and photos of cable splicing).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 5 of 21
5

Kasal admitted that one can wiretap someone’s internet connection with a coaxial cable splicer,

and spoke of his knowledge of military wire-tapping surveillance techniques.10 Furthermore, 

when questioned about Defendant DFC’s use of a coaxial wiretap in this case, he became evasive 

and refused to answer questions, citing his obligations of secrecy to the military.11

On September 4, 2018, Defendant Dr. Guerra took the Phase I report to the San Antonio 

Police Department and filed a false police report against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu.12 On 

December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu was arrested.13 On June 24, 2019, all charges 

against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu were dismissed by the court. 14

On August 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel DFC to produce withheld 

discovery.15

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Joint Advisory 

Agreement requiring Defendants to submit their withheld discovery to Plaintiffs.16

10 See Dkt. 110, Ex. G, Dep. of S. Kasal (Jul 18, 2022) at 6:10-12:10. (discussing knowledge of militarygrade splicing techniques, discussing methods of splicing, and evading further answers.

11 See Dkt. 110, Ex. G, at 8:4-9:8 (refusing to answer questions, citing his obligation to the military).

12 See Dkt. 110, Ex. H, GUERRA 000957-61 (police affidavit memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired 

DFC); Dkt. 110, Ex. B, at GUERRA 000086-87 (affidavit template provided by DFC to Dr. Guerra); Dkt. 110, Ex. 

D, at 45:16-46:3 (stating she took a copy of DFC’s Phase I report to the San Antonio Police Department).

13 See Dkt. 110, Ex. K, BATES#: GUERRA 000952 (docket for Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s criminal case 

in Bexar County); Dkt. 110, Ex. H, at GUERRA 000960-61 (bond report for Bexar County Criminal Case against 

Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu); Dkt. 110, Ex. L, DrCantuProd#000029-30 (surety bond for criminal matter).

14 See Dkt. 110, Ex. M, BATES#: GUERRA 000953-55 (order granting dismissal of criminal case against 

Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu).

15 See Dkt. 103.

16 See Dkt. 116.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 6 of 21
6

On November 11, 2022, DFC submitted deficient supplemental discovery to Plaintiffs.

17

This production includes the computer code that DFC provided to Dr. Guerra in the form of a 

phishing link.18 Dr. Guerra then sent the phishing links she received from DFC to Plaintiffs as 

part of her campaign to surveil Plaintiffs and damage Plaintiffs’ computer networks.19

The computer code produced by DFC is incomplete as the code indicates that the 

phishing protocols work with other lines of computer code that Defendants’ have yet to fully 

produce.

The computer code includes forty-six independent uses of the word “phishing”, as well as 

dozens of separate scripts embedded within the code.20 Additionally, the computer code includes 

one-hundred-and-thirteen instances of “PeerConnection” script.21 The computer code produced 

by DFC shows that DFC and Dr. Guerra conspired to deploy phishing links that contained a 

PeerConnection script to gain remote access to Plaintiffs’ protected computer network.

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendants requesting the withheld 

discovery materials. As of the date of this filing, the Defendants have yet to submit the requested 

withheld discovery.22

17 See Ex. A.

18 See BATES#: D 000110-13 (phishing links sent to Plaintiffs by Dr. Guerra using fake email addresses).

19 Id.

20 See Ex A.

21 Id.

22 See Ex. B.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 21
7

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."23 The 

party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to show the absence of a material fact.24

A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return 

a verdict for the non-moving party."25

Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing 

party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists.26 Thus, to defeat a properly 

supported motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."27 Whether a fact is considered to be "material" is 

determined by the substantive law, and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome 

of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."28

The facts shall be viewed, and all reasonable inferences drawn, in the light most favorable to the 

23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

24 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

25 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

26 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

27 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 ("[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties 

will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no 

genuine issue of material fact.").

28 Id. at 248.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 21
8

non-moving party.29 Neither conclusory allegations nor unsubstantiated assertions will satisfy the 

nonmovant's burden."30

Argument

This Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment because 

no reasonable juror would find a genuine issue as to any material fact evidencing that Defendants 

participated in a coordinated scheme of illegal computer hacking, phishing, stalking, and 

surveillance against Plaintiffs, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 

1030 et. seq. (“CFAA”), the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et. seq., the Texas Harmful 

Access by Computer Act §143.001 (“HACA”), Texas Penal Code § 33.02(b-1) (1), and the 

Texas torts of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Furthermore, no reasonable juror could find a genuine issue as to any material fact evidencing 

that Defendants coordinated to maliciously prosecute Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu and violate the 

Texas tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I. Defendants’ Deployment of Phishing Links and Malicious Scripts 

Against Plaintiffs Establishes Defendants’ CFAA Violations

Defendants’ production of their phishing links and remote access scripts used to hack and 

surveil Plaintiffs evidences their CFAA violations. 

29 Id. at 255.

30 Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 21
9

The CFAA prohibits "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization and 

thereby obtain[ing] . . . information from any protected computer."

31 Such intentional access 

includes, but is not limited to phishing schemes that deceive users into divulging login 

information.32 Additionally, the CFAA prohibits a computer accessor from exceeding their 

authority and using prior authorization to access another users’ data to obtain or alter information 

in the computer that the accessor is not entitled to obtain or alter.

33

Defendants’ produced computer code includes forty-six independent instances of the term 

“phishing” used in association with username and password submission fields, as well as user 

data records. Inclusions of the term “phishing” in association with these user data points 

highlights Defendants’ attempts to gain unauthorized and unknown access to Plaintiffs’ personal 

data through means of deceit.

Additionally, the produced code contains one-hundred-and-thirteen instances of 

“PeerConnection” script. This computer script, as deployed upon Plaintiffs, allowed the 

Defendants to access Plaintiffs’ computer networks remotely, in direct violation of the CFAA.

Further illegal conduct by Defendants can be presumed because many lines of the code 

that was produced on November 11, 2022, indicate that they interact with other, yet to be 

disclosed, computer code. While it is clear that Defendants’ effectively deployed phishing links 

31 See Wofse v. Horn, 523 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D. Mass. 2021).

32 See United States v. Iwuanyanwu, No. 22-1297 (1st Cir. May. 30, 2023).

33 See United States v. Valle, 12 Cr. 847 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 2014).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 10 of 21
10

against Plaintiffs, it is unclear at this point to what extent Defendants’ have infiltrated Plaintiffs’ 

computer systems because the computer scripts that the phishing commands interact with have 

not been disclosed by the Defendants. Furthermore, the produced “PeerConnection” scripts 

indicate the existence of additional surveillance activities committed by Defendants that have yet 

to be disclosed. Regardless, the recently produced computer code is more than enough for a 

reasonable juror to find that Defendants unlawfully infiltrated Plaintiffs’ computer networks and 

violated the CFAA. And the fact that the Defendants are still hiding computer code from the 

Plaintiffs despite multiple requests would lead any reasonable juror to conclude that the 

Defendants had illegally accessed Plaintiffs’ computer networks in order to engage in a course of 

surveillance and harassment.

A. Defendant DFC’s Willful Failure to Produce

Depositions reveal that Defendant DFC willfully withheld a broad swath of discovery 

they were obligated to produce. Only after depositions and Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel did 

DFC produce a small amount of material. To date, DFC has not produced their complete 

communications with Defendant Dr. Guerra. Moreover, the code that Defendants did produce 

indicates the existence of outstanding computer code that has not been produced. DFC has 

intentionally withheld a substantial portion of material information that Plaintiffs requested from 

Defendant DFC and that the discovery indicates exists. 

Under the Joint Advisory, Plaintiffs sent DFC ninety-eight requests for discovery. DFC 

repeatedly refused to produce. DFC has only produced a small fraction of the discovery 

requested by Plaintiffs. Despite DFC’s failure to produce, the materials that DFC has produced 

are more than enough to establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 11 of 21
11

the Defendants successfully collaborated to hack and surveil Plaintiffs’ computer networks in 

violation of the CFAA. Moreover, the Defendants’ evasiveness and refusal to produce the 

computer codes at issue fully further evidences their malicious hacking and infiltration of 

Plaintiffs’ computer networks.

II. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment as to Malicious 

Prosecution

The record establishes the absence of any question of material fact as to whether the 

elements of malicious prosecution under Texas state law have been met: (1) Defendant Dr. 

Guerra commenced criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu using a form 

affidavit written by DFC; (2) The false charge lacked probable cause and was dismissed in 

Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s favor; (3) Defendants acted with malice as part of their campaign 

to stalk, harass and hack Plaintiffs.

34

A. Dr. Guerra Admits to Taking the DFC Phase I Report to the Police

Defendant Dr. Guerra filed a false police report against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu at the 

urging of Defendant DFC. DFC expressly told Dr. Guerra that in order to obtain a Phase II report 

on Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu, a police report was required.35

34 See e.g. Akin v. Dahl, 661 SW 2d 917 (Tex. Sup Ct. 1983).

35 See Dkt. 110, Ex. D, BATES#: D 000149 (DFC call log registering a 12-minute call with Dr. Guerra

(marked confidential and subject to Protective Order, Ex. D available for in camera review)); Dkt. 110, Ex. B at 

GUERRA 000399 (Phase I report requiring Dr. Guerra to file a police report); Dkt. 110, Ex. H at GUERRA 000957-

58 (police affidavit memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired DFC); Dkt 110, Ex. B at GUERRA 000086-87 

(affidavit template provided by DFC to Dr. Guerra); Dep. of Dr. Guerra 45:16-46:3 (Dr. Guerra admits she took a 

copy of DFC’s Phase I report to the San Antonio Police Department).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 12 of 21
12

This false police report, done without probable cause, led to Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s 

arrest and prosecution.36 Defendant Dr. Guerra admitted to the San Antonio Police Department 

she communicated with and hired Defendant DFC.

37

Throughout discovery, both Defendants have been evasive and have refused to produce 

evidence related to their hacking, harassment, and surveillance of Plaintiffs. For instance, when 

asked three times at her deposition whether she had searched for responsive communications, Dr. 

Guerra answered “yes” and then stated that she had found none.38 The next day Dr. Guerra’s 

counsel produced communications between Dr. Guerra and DFC. The discovery indicates that 

Plaintiffs have still not received the full scope of communications between Defendants regarding 

their conspiracy against Plaintiffs. 

Defendant Dr. Guerra’s deliberate misrepresentations as to the existence of her 

communications with Defendant DFC in her deposition, as well as DFC’s willful withholding of 

evidence, erases any doubt as to material facts underlying all the elements of malicious 

prosecution.

36 See Dkt. 110, Ex. H, at GUERRA 000957-58 (police affidavit memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired 

DFC); Dkt. 110, Ex. C at 35:23-25 (admitting she did not know who attempted to access her account); 36:1-11

(admitting she does not know who MonkeyBar1970 is); 93:12-25 (admitting she has no evidence that her computer 

network was accessed without authorization), 97:1-11 (admitting her last contact with Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu 

was April 1, 2018 for two-minutes outside a restaurant);Dkt. 110, Ex. J at D 000055 (Emails between DFC and Dr. 

Guerra discussing tracking URLs and phishing scheme).

37 See Dkt. 110, Ex. H, at GUERRA 000957-58 (police affidavit memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired 

DFC); See also San Antonio Police bodycam footage of Dr. Guerra making her police report against Melody Joy 

Cantu (On file with Plaintiffs). 

38 See Dkt. 110, Ex. C, at 7:5-9:15 (claiming she does not recall emailing with DFC, that she had searched

responsive communications, and that she found none).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 13 of 21
13

Dr. Guerra has a history of misrepresentation in federal and state proceedings. Not only 

did Dr. Guerra unlawfully withhold information in this case and wrongfully accuse Plaintiff 

Melody Joy Cantu of criminal acts in order to acquire the Phase II report from DFC, but she 

deliberately misrepresented the truth in her lawsuit against her former employer, Humana 

Government Business Inc. (“Humana”) in this very Court. On February 18, 2020, Dr. Guerra 

was fired from her role as Vice President and Chief Medical Officer at Humana for sexually 

harassing at least one subordinate employee at the workplace.39 Despite admitting to her sexually 

lewd and unlawful conduct, and knowing that she was fired from Humana for sexual harassment 

of a subordinate, Dr. Guerra subsequently filed a complaint with the Texas Workforce 

Commission Civil Rights Division, and pursued a federal lawsuit against her former employer 

alleging that she was fired for racial discrimination.40 This employment action was dismissed 

with prejudice.

41

III. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the CFAA 

Counts

The computer code recently produced by DFC proves Defendants’ CFAA violations. The 

computer code produced shows that Defendants deployed a phishing attack that included 

39 See Declaration of Ricky Edwards, GUERRA V. HUMANA AND HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, INC., 

21-cv-00882 WDTX, Dkt. 1-4 pp. 54-55 (attached as Ex. D).

40 See Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division Intake Questionnaire, GUERRA V. HUMANA AND 

HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, INC., 21-cv-00882 WDTX, Dkt. 1-4 pp. 18-22 (attached as Ex. E).; See Answer 

by Humana Government Business, Inc., GUERRA V. HUMANA AND HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, INC., 21-cv00882 WDTX, Dkt. 2 (attached as Ex. F).

41 See Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, GUERRA V. HUMANA AND HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS,

INC., 21-cv-00882 WDTX, Dkt. 12 (attached as Ex. G).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 14 of 21
14

malicious code that allowed Defendants to gain remote access to Plaintiffs’ protected computer 

networks. This new discovery, though incomplete, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and supports the proposition that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.

A. Unauthorized Access under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(2)(C)

Plaintiffs’ computers are used in interstate commerce and are “protected computers” as

the term is used in 18 U.S.C. §1030 (e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs maintained and secured their computers 

by reasonable means, and never authorized Defendants to access them. Defendants Dr. Guerra 

and DFC conspired together to intentionally access Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s protected 

computers without authorization.42 The computer code produced by DFC contains numerous 

phishing and remote connection scripts that were deployed against Plaintiffs and allowed 

Defendants to unlawfully access Plaintiffs’ protected computers.

43

Defendants used phishing links to gain unauthorized access to Plaintiffs’ protected 

computers.44 Phishing is a violation of Texas criminal law.45

42 See Dkt. 110, Ex. N at BATES#: D 000031-32 (communications between Dr. Guerra and DFC including 

Plaintiff Dr. Cantu’s PII (marked confidential and subject to Protective Order, Ex. N available for in camera

review); Dkt. 110, Ex. N, at D 000034-54 (DFC sends background check on Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu to Dr. 

Guerra); Dkt. 110, Ex. A, at D 000060-61 (Retainer agreement between Dr. Guerra and DFC).

43 See Ex. A.

44 See Dkt. 110, Ex. H, at D 000110-D 000113 (emails in which Dr. Sandra forwards to DFC emails from 

fake email addresses she phished Plaintiffs with by sending URL tracking links); Dkt. 110, Ex. O at GUERRA 

00339-46 (instructions from DFC directing Dr. Guerra how to deploy phishing links); Dkt. 110, Ex. B, at GUERRA 

000081 (DFC Phase I report to Dr. Guerra with URL tracking link results), Dkt. 110, Ex. G at 24:4-24:10 (stating he 

reviewed code of the phishing links sent to Plaintiffs), 27:12-15 (conceding he reviewed raw text files), 30:19-24

(stating phishing links can be used to install malware on target networks), 35:6-22 (acknowledging he knows 

phishing is a crime), 37:1-7 (admitting phishing techniques employ deceptive tactics).

45 See Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act §143.001 (“HACA”), Texas Penal Code § 33.02(b-1) (1).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 15 of 21
15

The evidence in discovery also indicates that Defendants conspired to splice into 

Plaintiffs’ private cable network. Plaintiffs removed a cable splicer from their Spectrum cable 

connection that was installed by Defendants.46 DFC’s refusal to produce complete evidence in 

this matter, coupled with their own expert’s military-grade knowledge of cable splicing, warrants 

this Court finding that there is no question of material fact as to whether Defendants violated the 

CFAA and federal wiretap law when they unlawfully installed a cable splicer on Plaintiffs’ 

Spectrum cable box.

As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo 

Cantu suffered loss in expending time, money, and resources aggregating at least $5000.00 in 

value, to investigate the intrusion, assess the damage, and restore their systems to their prior 

state.47

B. Unauthorized Damage under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(5)(A)

Defendants Dr. Guerra and DFC knowingly caused transmission of a program, 

information, code, or command, and intentionally caused damage without authorization. This 

damage includes impairment to the integrity and availability of Plaintiffs’ data, programs, 

systems, and information on the Cantu’s computers and networks resulting from computer 

crashes, diminished bandwidth, diminished processing time, and the deletion and alteration of 

46 Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs of 

damage caused by splicer).

47 See Dkt. 110, Ex. P, BATES#: Dr.CantuProd#000001-28 (receipts and invoices from Exhibit A 

Computer Forensics Investigation LLC to discover and assess damage to computer network); Dkt. 110, Ex Q at 

000050-51 (invoices from Exhibit A Computer Forensics Investigation LLC for consultation services provided);

Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs of damage 

caused by splicer).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 16 of 21
16

data, all caused by Defendants’ phishing, wiretapping, malware, and use of malicious codes 

against Plaintiffs.48

As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. 

Rodrigo Cantu suffered loss in expending time, money, and resources aggregating at least 

$5000.00 in value, to investigate the intrusion, assess the damage, and restore their systems to 

their prior state.49

C. Unauthorized Access and Reckless Damage Under 18 U.S.C. §1030 (a)(5)(B)

Defendants Dr. Guerra and DFC intentionally accessed Plaintiffs’ protected computers 

without authorization and thereby recklessly impaired the integrity and availability of the

Plaintiff’s data, programs, systems, and information.50 The Defendants reckless conduct caused 

computer crashes, diminished bandwidth, diminished processing time, and resulted in the 

deletion of data.51

48 See Dkt. 100 Ex. G at 20:17-25 (admitting that DFC produced a package for implementation by user),

21:1-22:3 (stating that DFC’s phishing methods allow DFC to access data and that he reviewed the code of the 

phishing links); Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and 

photographs of damage caused by splicer).

49 See Dkt. 110, Ex. P at BATES#: Dr.CantuProd#000001-28 (receipts and invoices from Exhibit A 

Computer Forensics Investigation LLC to discover and assess damage to computer network); Dkt. 110, Ex. Q at

000050-51 (invoices from Exhibit A Computer Forensics Investigation LLC for consultation services provided); 

Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs of damage 

caused by splicer).

50 See Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs 

of damage caused by splicer); Dkt. 110, Ex. G, at 34:22-35:5 (admitting he knows technologies that can be used to 

tap into systems via coaxial cable connectors); Dkt. 110, Ex. R at Dep. of Dr. Rodrigo Cantu at 18:3-16 (Plaintiff 

Dr. Cantu admits that he was having difficulties after DFC connected to his home internet connection.

51 Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs of 

damage caused by splicer).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 17 of 21
17

As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo 

Cantu suffered loss in expending time, money, and resources aggregating at least $5000.00 in 

value, to investigate the intrusion, assess the damage, and restore their systems to their prior 

state.52

D. Unauthorized Access Causing Damage and Loss under 18 U.S.C. §1030 

(a)(5)(C) Exceeds the Statutory Amount of $5000

As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo 

Cantu suffered loss in expending time, money, and resources aggregating at least $5000.00 in 

value, to investigate the intrusion, assess the damage, and restore their systems to their prior 

state.53

E. Defendants Conspired on all CFAA Causes of Action

This Court should grant Plaintiffs summary judgment on the conspiracy cause of action

because no reasonable juror would find a genuine issue as to any material fact establishing that 

Defendants conspired to hack and surveil Plaintiffs’ computers and networks. The evidence 

shows, and Defendants admit in their depositions, that Dr. Guerra paid, and DFC agreed, to a 

scheme of illegal computer hacking, phishing, stalking, and surveillance, in violation of the 

CFAA and Texas state computer law.

54 Furthermore, the computer code produced by DFC 

52 See Dkt. 110, Ex. P at BATES#: Dr.CantuProd#000001-28 (receipts and invoices from Exhibit A 

Computer Forensics Investigation LLC to discover and assess damage to computer network); Dkt. 110, Ex. Q at

000050-51 (invoices from Exhibit A Computer Forensics Investigation LLC for consultation services provided); 

Dkt. 110, Ex. F, at MCantuProd 00193-00206 (invoices from Spectrum work orders and photographs of damage 

caused by splicer).

53 Id.

54 See Dkt. 110, Ex. N, at D 000031-32 (communications between Dr. Guerra and DFC including Plaintiff 

Dr. Cantu’s PII); id. at D 000034-54 (DFC sends background check on Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu to Dr. Guerra); 

Dkt. 110, Ex. A, at D 000060-61 (affidavit documenting retainer agreement between Dr. Guerra and DFC); Dkt. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 18 of 21
18

includes phishing and remote access scripts that Defendant’s used to gain unlawful access to 

Plaintiffs’ computer networks.

IV. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the Texas State 

Computer Law Claims

For the same reasons argued above as to the CFAA claims, this Court should grant 

Plaintiffs summary judgment on the Texas state law claims. Texas State Law provides a cause of 

action for anyone who is injured or whose property is damaged as a result of an intentionally 

committed computer intrusion.55

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above and in Plaintiffs’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment, this 

Court should grant summary judgment all on causes of action.

56

110, Ex. B (Phase I report advising Dr. Guerra to file a police report); Ex. H, at GUERRA 000958 (police affidavit 

memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired DFC).

55 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001 & Texas Penal Code § 33.02(a)

56 See Dkt. 110.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 19 of 21
19

Brooklyn, NY

Dated: July 17, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Hassard 

(NY Bar No. 5824768)

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

(718) 737 - 7264

michael@torekeland.com

/s/ Tor Ekeland

(NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

(718) 737 - 7264

tor@torekeland.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu 

and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 20 of 21
20

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 17

th of July 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

electronic notification of such filing to the parties on record.

/s/ Michael Hassard

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-3 Filed 07/17/23 Page 21 of 21