PAGE 1 OF 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs 

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO.: 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

DR. GUERRA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA (“Dr. Guerra” and “Defendant”), and 

files this Dr. Guerra’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims, and, in support 

thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. At its core, this lawsuit is a domestic dispute initiated by Plaintiffs, Melody Joy 

Cantu (“Melody”), and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu (“Dr. Cantu”), against Dr. Cantu’s ex-wife, Dr. Guerra, 

in an attempt to re-litigate matters which were the subject of a 2018 District Court lawsuit 

involving the custody of the then-minor children of Dr. Guerra and Dr. Cantu, which was dismissed

with prejudice in 2019. This case is in federal court because Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Guerra and 

co-defendant, Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC (“DFC”) violated the Computer Fraud Abuse 

Act (“CFAA”) and Federal Wire Tap Act. Plaintiffs have also asserted claims against Dr. Guerra 

and DFC for Harmful Access by Computer, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 21
PAGE 2 OF 21

malicious prosecution under Texas law. 

2. However, Plaintiffs’ allegations are based solely on assumptions, speculation, 

supposition, and motive (Dr. Guerra’s alleged “obsessive jealousy”1 and Melody’s belief that Dr. 

Guerra wanted to get “an edge up on the [underlying] family case then pending in District Court2).

Accordingly, Dr. Guerra requests that the Court grant Dr. Guerra summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ 

CFAA, Harmful Access by Computer, and Federal Wire Tap claims because Plaintiffs lack any 

actual evidence that (i) Dr. Guerra or DFC intentionally or knowingly hacked or surveilled 

Plaintiffs; or (ii) Plaintiffs suffered any damages, much less a minimum of $5,000 in any 1-year 

period, as a result of any alleged intentional or knowing unauthorized access of Plaintiffs’ 

computers, computer networks, or computer systems by Dr. Guerra or DFC. 

3. In addition, Dr. Guerra requests that the Court grant summary judgment on all of 

Dr. Cantu’s claims against Dr. Guerra because they are barred by the doctrine of collateral 

estoppel. 

II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

4. In support of this Motion, Dr. Guerra relies upon the following: 

• Exhibit 1 – Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Melody Joy Cantu 

dated July 16, 2022. 

• Exhibit 2 – USAA Business Records Affidavit and Investigation Report 

dated November 15, 2018. 

• Exhibit 3 – Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Dr. Rodrigo Cantu 

dated July 16, 2022. 

• Exhibit 4 – Plaintiffs’ Expert Designation. 

1 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶3.

2

 Exhibit 1, 149:1-19. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 2 of 21
PAGE 3 OF 21

• Exhibit 5 - Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Plaintiffs’ Retained 

Testifying Expert, Jeffrey Michael Fischbach dated July 26, 2022. 

• Exhibit 6 – Plaintiff, Melody Joy Cantu’s Responses to Defendant Dr. 

Guerra’s First Set of Interrogatories.

• Exhibit 7 – Plaintiff, Dr. Rodrigo Cantu’s Responses to Defendant Dr. 

Guerra’s First Set of Interrogatories.

• Exhibit 8 – Email Correspondence Regarding Plaintiffs’ Refusal to 

Respond to Dr. Guerra’s First Set of Interrogatories Pertaining to Plaintiffs’ 

Damages.

• Exhibit 9 – Mediated Settlement Agreement in the District Court Custody 

Case between Dr. Guerra and Dr. Cantu. 

• Exhibit 10 – District Court Subpoena dated March 29, 2019 by Dr. Rodrigo 

Cantu to DFC for Production of Documents in the District Court Custody 

Case. 

• Exhibit 11 – Sandra Guerra’s Answer to Rodrigo David Cantu’s Motion for 

Enforcement of Possession or Access filed in District Court on June 11, 

2018. 

• Exhibit 12 – Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice dated November 27, 2019

filed in the District Court Custody Case. 

5. Dr. Guerra also requests the Court to take judicial notice of the pleadings and motions 

of the parties referenced herein and all other orders and pleadings on file.

III. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND AND/OR SUPPLEMENT PENDING 

OUTCOME OF NOVEMBER 4, 2022 HEARING

6. Dr. Guerra filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Written Discovery

and Request for Sanctions [Doc. 102] on August 29, 2022 (“Dr. Guerra’s Motion to Compel”) 

requesting the Court to order Plaintiffs to produce (i) all communications between Plaintiffs and 

the individuals identified in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures as likely to have discoverable

information, and (ii) the engagement letters between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel and all fee 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 3 of 21
PAGE 4 OF 21

statement and invoices (redacted for privilege) evidencing the attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiffs 

seek to recover from Defendants. 

7. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused them to suffer severe emotional distress 

and identified various physicians in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures who allegedly treated them. Dr. 

Guerra served notices of her intent to take depositions upon written questions to the treating 

physicians identified in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and subpoena for the production of Plaintiffs’ 

medical and billing records, but no medical or billing records have been produced as of this date. 

Instead, Melody filed her Notice of Motion for Opposed Protective Order [Doc. 101] (“Melody’s 

Motion for Protective Order”). 

8. The Court has ordered an in-person hearing on November 4, 2022 on Dr. Guerra’s 

Motion to Compel and Melody’s Motion for Protective Order. Accordingly, Dr. Guerra reserves 

the right to amend and/or supplement this Motion pending the Court’s ruling on such motions and 

the production of any documents that may be ordered by the Court. 

IV. 

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits, and other 

summary judgment evidence show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 “A fact is ‘material if it might affect the outcome 

of a case under the governing substantive law.4

 

10. A defendant who seeks summary judgment on a plaintiff’s claim must demonstrate 

the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact by either (i) submitting summary judgment 

evidence that negates the existence of a material element of the plaintiff’s claim or (ii) showing 

3 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322.

4 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 4 of 21
PAGE 5 OF 21

there is no evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.5 While the party 

moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, 

it does not need to negate the elements of the non-movant's case.6 

11. While the court must view the evidence in a light favorable to the party opposing 

summary judgment, this favorable presumption for the non-movant exists only when the nonmovant presents an actual controversy of fact.7

 When the moving party has met its Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(a) burden, the non-moving party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by resting on 

the mere allegations of its pleadings. The non-movant must identify specific evidence in the record 

and articulate how that evidence supports that party's claim.8 “This burden will not be satisfied by 

‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated 

assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.’ ”9 Courts cannot “in the absence of any proof, 

assume that the non-moving party could or would prove the necessary facts.”10 

V. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SUCCEED ON ANY CLAIM AGAINST DR.

GUERRA FOR VIOLATION OF THE CFAA. 

12. Plaintiffs assert 8 causes of action against Dr. Guerra for violation of the following 

sections of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. §§1030(a)(2)(C) [First COA]; 1030(a)(5)(A) [Second COA]; 

1030(a)(5)(B) [Third COA]; 1030(a)(5)(C) [Fourth COA]; 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(b) [Fifth 

COA]; 1030(a)(5)(A) and 1030(b) [Sixth COA]; 1030(a)(5)(B) and 1030(b) [Seventh COA]; 

5 See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23. 

6 Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

7 Coburn Supply Co., Inc. v. Kohler Co., 194 F. Supp. 2d 580, 581 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (citing Little 

v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). 

8 Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 119 (5th Cir. 2007). 9 Boudreaux, 402 F.3d at 540 (quoting Little, 37 F.3d at 1075).

10 Id.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 5 of 21
PAGE 6 OF 21

1030(a)(5)(C) [Eighth COA].11

13. Courts have held that the CFAA must be construed narrowly, even in civil actions, 

because the same sections that give rise to civil remedies also give rise to criminal penalties.12 

i. There is No Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Dr. Guerra 

Intentionally or Knowingly Accessed Plaintiffs’ Computers or Intentionally 

Caused any Damage.

14. Dr. Guerra first moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ CFAA claims 

because Plaintiffs cannot meet their summary judgment burden to prove that that Dr. Guerra acted 

with the requisite intent or knowledge required to give rise to liability under the CFAA. The 

provisions of the CFAA relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Guerra provide in pertinent part 

as follows: 

(a) Whoever— 

(2)(C) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds 

authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected 

computer [Plaintiffs’ First COA]; or 

(5)(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or 

command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage 

without authorization, to a protected computer [Plaintiffs’ Second 

COA]; or

(5)(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and 

as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage [Plaintiffs’ Third 

COA]; or 

(5)(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and 

as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss [Plaintiffs’ Fourth 

COA]

*** 

11 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. 6].

12 Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, 734 F. Supp. 2d 956, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Lockheed Martin Corp. v.

Speed, 6:05-CV-1580-ORL-31, 2006 WL 2683058, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2006); see

also Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 12 n. 8, 125 S. Ct. 377, 160 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2004) (using the 

rule of lenity to interpret a criminal statute that was being enforced in a civil action). 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 6 of 21
PAGE 7 OF 21

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. 

(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under 

subsection (a) [(2)(C) and 5(A)(C), above,] of this section shall be punished as 

provided in subsection (c) of this section [Plaintiffs’ Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and 

Eighth COA].13

15. Plaintiffs make the conclusory allegation that Dr. Guerra and DFC “hacked, 

surveilled, and damages Plaintiffs’ protected computers and computer networks.” But, these 

allegations are based solely on assumptions, speculation, supposition, and motive (Dr. Guerra’s 

alleged “obsessive jealousy”14 and Melody’s belief that Dr. Guerra wanted to get “an edge up on 

the [underlying] family case then pending in District Court15). After exhaustive discovery, 

Plaintiffs lack any actual evidence that Dr. Guerra or DFC hacked or surveilled Plaintiffs.

16. Plaintiffs allege that on or about September 21, 2018, a representative from 

Spectrum/Charter discovered “a cable splitter installed on their line that neither the cable company 

nor the Cantus put there.”16 Melody testified: 

A:· I am alleging that a splitter was placed on my line and the cameras, the modem 

and everything associated with that splitter could access the video cameras and 

everything else in the home.17

17. Melody further alleges that Dr. Guerra conducted video surveillance of Melody, 

Dr. Cantu, and Melody’s minor children and testified that she “believe[s] that through the link to 

[Melody’s] phone, Dr. Guerra listened to conversations” between Melody and Dr. Cantu and 

Melody and other people.18 However, Plaintiffs have no competent summary judgment evidence 

to support such allegations. Melody simply testified that “it's a reasonable assumption based on 

13 18 U.S.C. §§1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(A)-(C), and 1030(b) (emphasis added). 

14 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶3.

15 Exhibit 1, 149:1-19. 

16 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶41. 

17 Exhibit 1, 141:1-5. 

18 Exhibit 1, 140:4-149:14 (emphasis added).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 7 of 21
PAGE 8 OF 21

everything [Melody claims Dr. Guerra has] put [her] through”19 and she “believe[s] that as a result 

of the multiple – multiple actions Dr. Guerra has [allegedly] taken against her, it would not be 

outside of her scope to do this.”20

18. Moreover, the investigation performed by Melody’s employer, USAA, in response 

to Melody’s report to USAA that Dr. Guerra “may have hacked her computer and breached her 

VPN, firewall, and router” revealed that “IT’s review of [Melody] Cantu’s equipment and data did 

not reveal any breach or corruption.”21 In fact, USAA’s investigator reported that he spoke with 

the Spectrum cable representative on November 15, 2018 while on the Plaintiffs’ property and was 

advised by the Spectrum Cable representative “that the cable splitter that was on [Plaintiffs’] 

personal line appear[ed] to have been attached by Spectrum cable but he was not sure why it was 

done.”22

19. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against DFC for violation of the CFAA and for 

allegedly conspiring with Dr. Guerra to hack and surveil Plaintiffs “whole phone”23 but have no 

actual evidence establishing that DFC intentionally or knowingly accessed Plaintiffs’ computers 

or computer networks or that they conspired with Dr. Guerra to do so. 

Q.· ·... Are you alleging that DFC conducted video surveillance of you, your 

children and Dr. Cantu? 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: I'm saying it's a possibility based on the sextortion case in Austin that they have 

those capabilities, yes.

Q.· And so, my question to you is, what evidence do you have that DFC actually 

conducted video surveillance of you, Dr. Cantu and your children? 

19 Exhibit 1, 143:11-18 (emphasis added). 

20 Exhibit 1, 132:1-9 (emphasis added). 

21 Exhibit 2, 000005. 

22 Id. (emphasis added).

23 Exhibit 1, 146:3-21. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 8 of 21
PAGE 9 OF 21

· · · · · · · · ·MR. EKELAND:· Objection. 

A: It's -- yeah.

MR. EKELAND:· You can answer. 

A: It's getting repetitive. What evidence I have is that they have done this in the 

past to other individuals.· They were hired to track me, to monitor me, or 

however you want to word it, and it is an allegation.24

*** 

Q:· The voices that you say you hear coming from the phone, are you alleging 

that those voices come from DFC?

·· · · · · · · · MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· Go ahead and answer. 

A: I believe they were associates of Digital Forensics Corporation. 

Q: Okay.· You believe they were. What evidence do you have to establish that 

they were associates of DFC?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· Go ahead and answer.

Q: I believe that the phishing link was malicious.· I believe that Dr. Guerra sent it

to get an edge up on the family case.· And I believe that that's why she sent it 

was to monitor our phones. And I believe that she hired Digital Forensics to do 

it.25

20. Dr. Cantu also asserts claims against Dr. Guerra and DFC for violation of the CFAA 

and alleges that his “personal information” was stolen and posted on the dark web but concedes 

he does not have any confirmation that Dr. Guerra or DFC participated or were involved in any 

way:

Q: Do you have any evidence that any of your personal information or passwords 

were obtained by Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC or Dr. Guerra?

· 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

24 Exhibit 1, 144:22 (emphasis added). 

25 Exhibit 1, 144:22-149:19 (emphasis added).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 9 of 21
PAGE 10 OF 21

A: I don't have anything that specifically shows Digital Forensics or Sandra have

taken my passwords.· I don't have a -- I don't have a smoking gun, I guess, if 

you want to call it that.

Q: Do you have any evidence that your other personal information was taken by 

Dr. Guerra or Digital Forensics Corporation?

A: My personal information was on the dark web. That was found by the -- by 

Exhibit A.

Q: Your personal information was found on the dark web by Exhibit A?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.

A: Correct.

Q:· Yes?

A:· Yes.

Q:· Okay.· Did Exhibit A confirm how your personal information appeared on the 

dark web?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: They -- they thought it was stolen by somebody.

Q: Do you have any evidence who stole your personal information and put it on 

the dark web?

·

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

·

A: I don't -- like I said, I don't have a photo of them taking it.· I don't have that

kind of evidence.· That's -- I guess that's what I'm using as your -- when you 

say "evidence," yeah.

Q: Did Exhibit A confirm that Dr. Guerra or DFC obtained your personal 

information and posted it to the dark web?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: No.26

26 Exhibit 3, 87:13-88:16.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 10 of 21
PAGE 11 OF 21

21. In addition, Plaintiffs designated Jeff Fischbach, Forensic Technologist, as 

Plaintiffs’ retained testifying expert on various issues, including, “Defendants’ [alleged] hacking 

of Plaintiffs and the technical means used.”27 Plaintiffs’ deadline to serve Mr. Fischbach’s written 

expert report was September 15, 2021.

28 However, Mr. Fischbach testified on July 26, 2022 that 

he did not prepare an expert report and, although he claimed he has formed opinions in this case, 

he testified he never wrote any of them down and only communicated them “telephonically” to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel.29

22. Nevertheless, Mr. Fischbach testified he never inspected any of Plaintiffs’ devices 

or performed any sort of forensic analysis or investigation of any of Plaintiffs’ systems.30 Mr. 

Fischbach further testified as follows: 

Q:· Okay.· Do you -- is it -- is it your expert opinion as we sit here today that Dr. 

Guerra or DFC hacked Melody Joy Cantu's servers, devices, systems? 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:· At -- at this time, I don't have a specific opinion one way or the other 

regarding that. 

Q:·Okay.· Do you -- is it your expert opinion that Dr. Cantu -- I mean, Dr. Guerra 

or DFC hacked any of Dr. Rodrigo Cantu's devices or computers, home 

Internet services, any kind of servers?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:·Again, reiterating the last answer, I don't -- at this time, I don't have a -- a 

specific answer to that.

*** 

Q:· But -- but you don't have an opinion today as we sit here that DFC or Dr. Guerra 

27 Exhibit 4. 

28 Doc. 59. 

29 Exhibit 5, 84:7-85:18. Dr. Guerra intends to file a Motion to Exclude Mr. Fischbach as a 

Testifying Expert Witness within the deadline prescribed by the Court. 

30 Exhibit 5, 116:16-21.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 11 of 21
PAGE 12 OF 21

caused or -- I mean, surveilled or caused to be surveilled Melody Joy Cantu? 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:· Yeah, at -- at this moment, I don't believe I've seen anything that specifically 

says that an individual did such a thing, only that they -- that -- that the means 

to do so appear to have been achieved. 

Q:· ·Is it your expert opinion that DFC or Dr. Guerra surveilled Dr. Cantu?

· 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:· Again, restating the last answer, I don't – I don't have specific evidence to 

that effect, only that the means, the tools necessary to do so appear to 

have been achieved by DFC.

Q:· And you -- you have been designated as Plaintiffs' expert, so I -- I am asking 

you for your -- if you have an expert opinion, not just if you've seen specific 

evidence.· Do you intend as we sit here today to offer an opinion at trial that 

DFC or Dr. Guerra surveilled Melody Joy Cantu or Dr. Cantu? 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:: At this time, I don't have a specific opinion as to whether those individuals did 

such a thing.· And again only that -- that the means appear to have been gathered 

to do that. I would add to that.· At this point, while I understand I've been 

designated for -- for trial purposes, I don't know at this point that actual

testimony will be provided.· It's still dependent on any additional discovery and 

-- and then possible rebuttal for trial.31

23. Lastly, Mr. Fischbach testified as follows: 

Q:· Do you intend to provide any testimony at trial regarding social engineering? 

·· · · · · ·

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer. 

A:·At this time, I don't -- I don't intend to provide any specific testimony at trial. 

Q:·Regarding social engineering or – 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. 

· 

Q:·-- or anything?

· 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer. 

31 Exhibit 5, 117:18-118:8;121:16-122:25. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 12 of 21
PAGE 13 OF 21

A:·Regarding anything.· At this point, I'm -- I'm still a consultant. 

Q:·And -- and I just want to be clear.· You're -- you're providing consulting 

services to Plaintiffs?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer. 

A:· Specifically to Mr. Ekeland, yes, with the understanding that I may be asked 

to testify.32

24. Accordingly, as the first ground for Dr. Guerra’s motion, Dr. Guerra moves for 

summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ 8 causes of action against Dr. Guerra for violation of 

the CFAA because Plaintiffs have no competent, admissible evidence that Dr. Guerra 

knowingly or intentionally accessed Plaintiffs’ protected computers and networks without 

authorization. 

ii. There is No Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Plaintiffs Incurred 

the Requisite Amount of Damages to Support a Civil Claim under the CFAA.

25. The language of the statute shows that a critical element of a civil claim under the 

CFAA is damages of more than $5,000 during any 1-year period. A plaintiff brining a claim under 

the CFAA must show damages.33 The Court in Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 

F.Supp.2d 667, 678 (E.D.Tex. 2001) stated: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs plead ‘loss,’ 

‘damage,’ or both, they are required to prove ‘damage’ as an integral element of the violation 

alleged under 11 U.S.C. 1030(a).”34 

32 Exhibit 5, 116:24 – 117:17

33 See Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F.Supp.2d 667, 678 (E.D.Tex. 2001) (granting 

defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs could not plead damages over 

$5,000). 

34 Id.; see also Hayes v. Packard Bell, NEC, Inc., 193 F.Supp.2d 910, 912 (E.D.Tex. 2001) 

(granting defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff could not prove the $5,000 in 

damages).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 13 of 21
PAGE 14 OF 21

26. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “knowingly caused the transmission of a program, 

information, code, or command and intentionally caused damage without authorization,” including 

purported “impairment to the integrity and availability of [Plaintiffs’] data, programs, systems, and 

information on the Plaintiffs’ computers and networks resulting from computer crashes, 

diminished bandwidth, diminished processing time, and the deletion and alteration of data, all 

caused by Defendants’ [alleged] phishing, wiretapping, malware, and use of malicious codes 

against Plaintiffs.35 Plaintiffs make the bald assertion that, as a result of such alleged conduct by 

Defendants, Plaintiffs “suffered losses in expending time, money, and resources aggregating at 

$5,000 in value” as result of Defendants alleged unauthorized access to Plaintiffs’ protected 

computers and systems.36 However, there is no competent, admissible evidence of the requisite 

damages element of Plaintiffs’ CFAA claims. 

27. Dr. Guerra propounded interrogatories to Plaintiffs specifically requesting that each 

Plaintiff “[i]dentify with specificity” all the compensatory and consequential damages (including, 

without limitation, all medical bills and costs) [each Plaintiff] seek[s] to recover from Dr. Guerra 

in connection with Plaintiffs’ CFAA claims against Dr. Guerra, and include with their written 

answers the amount of each item of compensatory and consequential damages and the date such 

damage/cost was incurred.37

28. Although the law is clear that damages is an essential element of Plaintiffs’ CFAA 

claims against Dr. Guerra, Plaintiffs objected to Dr. Guerra’s requests for specific information 

regarding the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages and the date they were incurred on the ground that 

35 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

36 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶57-58, 61-62, 65-67, 71-72, 76-77, 81-82, 86-87, 91-92.

37 Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 14 of 21
PAGE 15 OF 21

such requests “seek[] irrelevant information.”38 Plaintiffs have failed and/or refused to provide 

any written response to such interrogatories pertaining to Plaintiffs’ purported damages.

39 Such 

refusal to provide any written response whatsoever makes clear that Plaintiffs have no evidence 

that they suffered any damages, much less a minimum of $5,000 in any 1-year period, as a result 

of any alleged intentional or knowing unauthorized access by Dr. Guerra or DFC.

29. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ retained testifying expert, Mr. Fischbach, testified that he did 

not have any opinion as to whether the conduct of Dr. Guerra or DFC did in fact cause any of the 

internet or bandwidth issues referenced in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint:

Q:· Is your expert opinion that DFC or Dr. Guerra caused or contributed to any of 

Melody Joy Cantu or Dr. Cantu's passwords or other personal information being 

posted on the dark web?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:·Similar -- similar to before.· Only that the means to do so appear to have been 

achieved, but I have no specific evidence to that effect.

Q:· You have no -- is it -- am I correct that you have no specific evidence or opinion 

that Dr. Guerra or DFC specifically caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs' 

personal information or passwords being posted on the dark web?

·A:·At this time, other --

·

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.

A: Yes. At this time, other than the means to do so, no, I have no – no specific 

opinion.

·

Q:· Is it your expert opinion that Dr. Guerra or DFC caused Plaintiffs to experience 

Internet or bandwidth issues at the home they resided in in 2018 or 2019?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection. You can answer.

A:·Specifically no -- no opinion to that effect at this time.· Again, only -- only if in 

fact there was manipulation of the -- of the cable splitter.· That's --that -- the --

38 Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 (emphasis added).

39 Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 15 of 21
PAGE 16 OF 21

the means would have been there for that effect.· But again, I have no evidence 

to prove that such a thing had in fact occurred at this time.40

30. Accordingly, Dr. Guerra is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ 

CFAA claims against her because Plaintiffs have no competent, admissible evidence that Plaintiffs 

suffered damages in excess of $5,000 as a result any alleged intentional or knowing unauthorized 

access by Dr. Guerra.

B. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SUCCEED ON ANY OF THEIR HARMFUL 

ACCESS BY COMPUTER CLAIMS. 

31. For similar reasons set forth in Section V.A supra, Dr. Guerra is entitled to 

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Chapter 143 claims for Harmful Access by Computer [Plaintiffs’ 

Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh COA]

41 and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs 

as if fully set forth verbatim. Specifically, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001(a) provides a 

civil cause of action for a person who is injured or whose property has been injured as a result of 

a knowing and intentional violation of Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code.42 

32. Chapter 33.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code [Plaintiffs’ Ninth COA] makes it an 

offense if a person “knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system 

without the effective consent of the owner.”43 Chapter 33.02(b-1)(1) of the Texas Penal Code 

[Plaintiffs’ Tenth COA] makes it an offense “if, with the intent to defraud or harm another or alter, 

damage, or delete property, the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or 

computer system without the effective consent of the owner.”44 Chapter 33.022 makes it an

40 Exhibit 5, 123:15 – 124:20. 

41 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶¶93-103. 

42 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 143.001(a) (emphasis added).

43 TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 33.02(a) (emphasis added).

44 TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 33.02(b-1)(1) (emphasis added).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 16 of 21
PAGE 17 OF 21

offense if a person “intentionally interrupts or suspends access to a computer system or computer 

network without the effective consent of the owner.”45

33. As detailed above, Plaintiffs’ theories of liability against Dr. Guerra pertaining to 

their Harmful Access by Computer claims are based purely on conjecture. Plaintiffs have no actual 

competent, admissible evidence that Dr. Guerra knowingly accessed Plaintiffs’ computer, 

computer network, or computer system; had any intent to defraud or harm Plaintiffs or alter, 

damage, or delete Plaintiffs’ property; or intentionally interrupted or suspended Plaintiffs’ access 

to their computer system or network. 

C. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SUCCEED ON THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST DR.

GUERRA FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL WIRE TAP ACT. 

34. For similar reasons set forth in Section V.A and V.B supra, Dr. Guerra is entitled 

to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim against Dr. Guerra for violation of the Federal Wiretap 

Act [Plaintiffs’ Twelfth COA]46 and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as 

if fully set forth verbatim.

35. Plaintiffs allege that “Dr. Guerra and DFC violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. by 

intentionally using, and endeavoring to use, any electronic, mechanical, or other device, including 

the installation of a cable line splitter and tracking URLSs, to intercept Plaintiffs’ wire, oral or 

electronic communications.”47 However, Melody testified as follows: 

Q: ...The allegations that you've made in this lawsuit, are you alleging that Dr. 

Guerra personally placed the splitter on the cable box? 

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· Go ahead and answer.

A: I don't think she personally went out there into their yard and did it. 

45 TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 33.022 (emphasis added).

46 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 109-111. 

47 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ¶ 111 (emphasis added).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 17 of 21
PAGE 18 OF 21

Q: Is it your allegation that an employee or representative agent of Digital

Forensics Corporation, LLC placed the splitter on the cable box?

A.· I don't know who did it.· Dr. Guerra hired a lot of people. 

*** 

Q:· Are you stating as a fact that Dr. Guerra or DFC placed the splitter on the 

cable box? 

· MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

·

A:·I am stating that I found -- a splitter was found on my cable box.· I have not 

alleged anybody.48

36. The documents produced by Melody’s employer, USAA, also show that USAA’s 

investigator was informed by a Spectrum representative that the cable splitter appeared to have 

been attached by Spectrum.

49

37. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no actual competent, admissible evidence that Dr. 

Guerra installed the cable splitter or any tracking URLs or that she otherwise intentionally 

intercepted Plaintiffs’ communications. 

D. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFF, DR. RODRIGO CANTU CANNOT SUCCEED ON ANY OF

HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DR. GUERRA BECAUSE THEY ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF 

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. 

38. In addition to the forgoing CFAA, Harmful Access by Computer, and Federal

Wire Tap Act, Dr. Cantu has asserted a claim against Dr. Guerra for intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. Dr. Cantu testified:

Q:· Okay.· What conduct of Dr. Guerra caused you to suffer severe emotional 

distress?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: The first thing was withholding visitation of my children starting in 2018. Then

alleging that I physically abused my children in a report to CPS shortly after 

48 Exhibit 1, 130:12-132:8. 

49 Exhibit 2.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 18 of 21
PAGE 19 OF 21

that.· And then hiring Digital Forensics Corporation to monitor us and access

our internet and video surveillance system in our home.

Q: And in your -- in this underlying custody case, you requested documents from

Digital Forensic Corporation, correct?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A:· I believe we did, yes.50

39. Dr. Cantu and Dr. Guerra were engaged in an enforcement/modification/custody 

suit initiated by Dr. Cantu in or about May 22, 2018 in Bexar County District Court. In 

connection therewith, Dr. Cantu subpoenaed all reports and/or summaries produced by DFC 

on behalf of Dr. Guerra, including any Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.51 However, Dr. Cantu 

and Dr. Guerra ultimately entered into a Mediated Settlement Agreement52 and a Motion for 

Dismissal With Prejudice was filed by Dr. Cantu dismissing with prejudice the 

enforcement/modification/custody suit and all claims asserted by Dr. Cantu.

53 An Order to 

Dismiss with Prejudice was entered on December 4, 2019.

40. However, approximately 6 months later on June 24, 2020, Dr. Cantu filed this 

Federal Court lawsuit alleging a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress 

based upon Dr. Guerra’s alleged prior withholding of visitation with their children and other claims 

related to Dr. Guerra’s hiring of DFC. Dr. Cantu testified:

A:· The custody case was about being able to have visitation with my children, 

which Sandra was withholding.

Q:· But, you're claiming now that you are suffering -- you are suffering severe 

emotional distress related to the withholding of -- Dr. Guerra's withholding of 

visitation from your children and her allegation that you physically abused 

your children, correct?

50 Exhibit 3, 91:6-19; see also Exhibit 10.

51 Exhibit 10.

52 Exhibit 9.

53 Exhibit 10 (emphasis added).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 19 of 21
PAGE 20 OF 21

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: That has been part of it, yes.

Q.· And those were issues and claims that were part of the custody case, correct?

MR. EKELAND:· Objection.· You can answer.

A: Correct.

41. The purpose of collateral estoppel is twofold: “to protect litigants from the burden 

of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy, and of promoting judicial 

economy by preventing needless litigation.”54 With this doctrine, courts intend to ensure that 

parties get one “full and fair opportunity to litigate.”55

42. All the claims asserted by Dr. Cantu against Dr. Guerra in this lawsuit arise from 

and/or relate to the claims asserted by Dr. Cantu in the 2018 enforcement/modification/custody 

suit against Dr. Guerra, all of which were voluntarily and summarily dismissed with prejudice to 

refiling after nearly 18 months of litigation in the District Court. As such, Dr Guerra is entitled to 

summary judgment on all of Dr. Cantu’s claims asserted against her in this suit under the doctrine 

of collateral estoppel.

VI.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, DR. SANDRA GUERRA,

respectfully prays that this Court grant Defendant, Dr. Guerra’s Motion for Summary Judgment in 

all respects and grant Dr. Guerra all such other and further relief, both general and special, at law 

54 Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326.

55 Montana v. U. S., 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979) (“To preclude parties from contesting matters 

that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate protects their adversaries from the expense 

and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on 

judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”)

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 20 of 21
PAGE 21 OF 21

or in equity, to which she may be justly entitled. 

Dated: October 14, 2022. Respectfully submitted,

DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.

McCombs Plaza, Suite 250 

755 E. Mulberry Avenue 

San Antonio, Texas 78212 

Telephone No.: (210) 822-6666 

Telecopier No.: (210) 660-3795 

 

By: /s/Ricardo G. Cedillo __________ 

 RICARDO G. CEDILLO

 Texas State Bar No. 04043600 

 rcedillo@lawdcm.com

 BRANDY C. PEERY

 Texas State Bar No. 24057666 

bpeery@lawdcm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, DR. 

SANDRA GUERRA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 14th day of October 2022, 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/Ricardo G. Cedillo 

RICARDO G. CEDILLO

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109 Filed 10/14/22 Page 21 of 21