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’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DR. GUERRA'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 18
Table of Contents

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

Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 5

Argument ............................................................................................................................ 7

1. Defendants Violated the CFAA ............................................................................ 7

A. There is Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Dr. Guerra Accessed 

Plaintiff’s Computers Causing Damage and Loss.................................................................. 7

B. There is Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Defendants Caused 

over $5000 in CFAA Loss.................................................................................................... 12

2. Defendants violated Texas’s Harmful Access by a Computer Act..................... 15

3. Defendants violated the Federal Wire Tap Act................................................... 15

4. There is no Collateral Estoppel ........................................................................... 16

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 16

Certificate of Service ........................................................................................................ 18

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 18
Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu file this opposition in response to 

Defendant Dr. Sandra Guerra’s (“Dr. Guerra”) Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons 

stated below, this Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety.

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

The discovery shows that Defendant Dr. Sandra Guerra hired Defendant DFC to hack, 

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

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. BATES#: D 000060-61 (Aff. of Dr. Guerra stating she has retained DFC (attached as Ex. A)).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 18
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 depositions 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

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.7

During the same time period, Plaintiffs discovered that someone spliced their cable network with 

a coaxial splicer.8 At deposition, DFC’s expert Shawn 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.9 Furthermore, when questioned about Defendant 

4 See BATES#: GUERRA 000062-87 (DFC Phase I Report (attached as Ex. B)).

5 See 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 (attached as Ex. C)).

6 See e.g. BATES#: GUERRA 000340 (discussing URL tracking links deployed against Plaintiffs (marked 

confidential and subject to Protective Order, Ex. D available for in camera review)).

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

as Ex. E)).

8 See e.g. MCantuProd00193-206 (service appointment scheduling and billing from Spectrum Cable to identify the 

issue with Plaintiff’s internet network, and photos of cable splicing (attached as Ex. F).

9 See Dep. of S. Kasal (Jul 18, 2022) at 6:10-12:10. (discussing knowledge of military-grade splicing techniques, 

discussing methods of splicing, and evading further answers (attached as Ex. G)).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 4 of 18
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.10

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.11 On 

December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu was arrested.12 On June 24, 2019, all charges 

against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu were dismissed by the court. 13

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."14 The 

party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to show the absence of a material fact.15

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."16

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

11 See GUERRA 000957-61 (police affidavit memorializing Dr. Guerra stating she hired DFC (attached as Ex. H)); 

Ex. B, at GUERRA 000086-87 (affidavit template provided by DFC to Dr. Guerra); Ex. D, at 45:16-46:3 (stating

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

12 See BATES#: GUERRA 000952 (docket for Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu’s criminal case in Bexar County 

(attached as Ex. K)); Ex. H, at GUERRA 000960-61 (bond report for Bexar County Criminal Case against Plaintiff 

Melody Joy Cantu); DrCantuProd#000029-30 (surety bond for criminal matter (attached as Ex. L)).

13 See BATES#: GUERRA 000953-55 (order granting dismissal of criminal case against Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu 

(attached as Ex. M).

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

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

16 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 5 of 18
Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing 

party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists.17 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."18 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."19

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

non-moving party.20 Neither conclusory allegations nor unsubstantiated assertions will satisfy the 

nonmovant's burden."21

"Courts agree that a willful or intentional destruction of evidence to prevent its use in 

litigation can justify severe sanctions."22 "Sanctions for spoliation of evidence may include 

awarding attorney fees, deeming certain facts admitted, giving an adverse inference instruction to 

the jury, excluding evidence or expert testimony, striking pleadings, entering a default judgment, 

and dismissing the case entirely."23 Spoliation of evidence may also subject a party to criminal 

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

18 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.").

19 Id. at 248.

20 Id. at 255.

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

22 See Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598, 618 (S.D. Tex. 2010).

23 Allstate Texas Lloyd's v. McKinney, 964 F. Supp. 2d 678, 683 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 6 of 18
penalties, contempt sanctions, and disciplinary sanctions.24 Much like criminal sentencing, an 

appropriate discovery sanction will take into account principles of deterrence, restitution, and 

punishment in proportion to the significance of the violation.25

Argument

The discovery establishes that Dr. Guerra and DFC conspired to hack, surveil and 

maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs. This is not a family dispute. This is the result of Dr. Guerra’s 

inability to move beyond the family dispute and end her personal vendetta against Plaintiffs. Dr. 

Guerra’s Motion for Summary Judgment fails to establish that there are no genuine issues of 

material fact. It is clear from the record that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of 

Plaintiffs on each of the issues brought up by Dr. Guerra in her Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Particularly given how both Defendants have withheld discovery related to their hacking and 

surveillance of Plaintiffs, as detailed in Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel. Finally, Defendant Dr. 

Guerra misconstrues Plaintiffs’ CFAA claims by only citing one part of the statute and ignoring 

Plaintiffs’ claims under 18 USC §1030(a)(2)(C). This Court should deny Defendant Dr. Guerra’s 

Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

1. Defendants Violated the CFAA

A. There is Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Dr. Guerra Accessed Plaintiff’s 

Computers Causing Damage and Loss

24 Wallace v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:11-CV-567-CWR-FKB, 2013 WL 3288435, at *5 n.1 (S.D. Miss. June 28, 

2013).

25 McKinney, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 682-83.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 7 of 18
Defendants are mistaken that 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(A) is the only CFAA provision at 

issue here. Whereas 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(A) prohibits unauthorized intentional damage to a 

computer, subsections B and C outline alternative theories of liability.26 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(B)

prohibits the intentional access to a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of 

such conduct, recklessly causing damage.

27 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(C) prohibits intentional

unauthorized access to a computer and, and as a result of such conduct, causing damage and 

loss.28 These are lower thresholds for liability that were not even addressed in Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment.

Moreover, 18 USC §1030(a)(2)(C) has no damage requirement at all, and merely requires

unauthorized access to a computer - like Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu's smartphone and obtaining 

information. Precisely what Dr. Guerra did when she phished Plaintiffs with the tracking URLs 

provided to her by DFC.

29 The record indicates that Dr. Guerra acted with the requisite 

knowledge and intent to give rise to liability under the CFAA. 

Dr. Guerra purposely hacked, surveilled and damaged Plaintiff’s computer networks in 

collusion with DFC. The record shows that Dr. Guerra conspired with DFC beginning May 25, 

2018. Together the Defendants planned and executed a conspiracy to purposely deploy phishing 

26 See 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(A).

27 See 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(B).

28 See 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(C).

29 See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 8 of 18
links to gain access to Plaintiff’s computers.30 Communications from DFC to Dr. Guerra 

describe in detail how Dr. Guerra should structure the phishing emails so that the Plaintiffs 

would be more inclined to click on them.31 On August 21, 2018, Dr. Guerra intentionally 

followed DFC’s guidance and used fake emails to send phishing links to the Plaintiffs.32 After 

successfully deploying the phishing links against Plaintiffs, Dr. Guerra forwarded the phishing 

emails to DFC, in a display of purpose and intent.

33 This phishing violates 18 USC 

§1030(a)(2)(C) as well as Texas state computer law. Once Dr. Guerra acquires access to 

Plaintiffs’ computer network, she worked with DFC to infiltrate Plaintiffs’ computer networks, 

impairing the integrity and availability of the data on that network in violation of 18 USC

§1030(a)(5)(A), 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(B) and 18 USC §1030(a)(5)(C). Both DFC and Dr. Guerra 

have willfully withheld discovery related to the computer intrusions, as was revealed in 

30 See 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); GUERRA 00339-46 (instructions from DFC directing 

Dr. Guerra how to deploy phishing links (attached as Ex. O)); Ex. B, at GUERRA 000081 (DFC Phase I report to 

Dr. Guerra with URL tracking link results), 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).

31 See Ex. O, GUERRA 00339-46 (instructions from DFC directing Dr. Guerra how to deploy phishing links); Ex. G 

at Depo 20:12-22:3, 35:6-22 (acknowledging he knows phishing is a crime), 37:1-7 (admitting phishing techniques 

employ deceptive tactics).

32 See 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); GUERRA 00339-46 (instructions from DFC directing 

Dr. Guerra how to deploy phishing links (attached as Ex. O)); Ex. B, at GUERRA 000081 (DFC Phase I report to 

Dr. Guerra with URL tracking link results), 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).

33 See e.g. BATES#: GUERRA 000340 (discussing URL tracking links deployed against Plaintiffs (marked 

confidential and subject to Protective Order, Ex. D available for in camera review)).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 9 of 18
depositions and by their belated piecemeal productions which indicate there is missing 

discovery. 

The fact that both Defendants withheld discovery related to their activities is evidence the

Court can consider against Defendants. DFC's Depositions revealed a host of information that 

DFC willfully withheld - including client management files, communications with Dr. Guerra, 

the existence of a server used to conduct surveillance of Plaintiffs, server logs, the existence of 

notes on a DFC server, only some of which has been belatedly produced to date. Dr. Guerra only 

produced her communications with DFC after denying at deposition that she had any, after 

saying she'd done a diligent search.34 The next day emails between Dr. Guerra and DFC were

produced. A reasonable jury can interpret Defendant's stonewalling on discovery as evidence of 

their guilt.

Once Plaintiffs’ network was compromised, Dr. Guerra and DFC had free access to

surveil the Plaintiffs. The connection established by DFC and Dr. Guerra damaged Plaintiffs’

computer network. The threshold for damage under the CFAA is minimal and only requires any 

impairment to the integrity or availability of the data. Computer intrusions by their nature 

compromise the integrity of their data. A network disruption caused by surveillance software 

34 See 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 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 10 of 18
constitutes impairment to the availability of data. This necessitated Plaintiff’s hiring of computer 

experts to deal with the network intrusion.35

Dr. Guerra’s attack on Plaintiffs’ computer networks with DFC was part of a broader 

campaign against Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu. On May 25, 2018, the 

same day she signed a retainer with DFC, Dr. Guerra hired detective.com to investigate 

Plaintiffs. 

Defendant Dr. Guerra incorrectly claims in her Motion for Summary Judgment that 

Spectrum Cable installed the wire splicer found on Plaintiffs’ internet cable running to their 

home. Spectrum actually determined that the cable splitter was not installed by them and 

removed it.

36 DFC’s first expert witness Shawn Kasal demonstrated knowledge of coaxial 

wiretapping and confirmed that coaxial cable splitters such as the one connected to Plaintiffs’

network can be used to monitor the network.37

Defendant Dr. Guerra contends that Plaintiff Dr. Cantu’s personal information was never 

compromised but references a section of Dr. Rodrigo Cantu’s deposition in which he was asked 

whether he had any evidence that his personal information and passwords were obtained by DFC 

and Dr. Guerra. Discovery materials produced subsequent to Dr. Cantu’s deposition (but 

35 See BATES#: Dr.CantuProd#000001-28 (receipts and invoices from Exhibit A Computer Forensics Investigation 

LLC to discover and assess damage to computer network (attached as Ex. P)), 000050-51 (invoices from Exhibit A 

Computer Forensics Investigation LLC for consultation services provided (attached as Ex. Q))

36 See e.g. MCantuProd00193-206 (service appointment scheduling and billing from Spectrum Cable to identify the 

issue with Plaintiff’s internet network, and photos of cable splicing (attached as Ex. F).

37 See Dep. of S. Kasal (Jul 18, 2022) at 6:10-12:10. (discussing knowledge of military-grade splicing techniques, 

discussing methods of splicing, and evading further answers (attached as Ex. G)).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 11 of 18
requested by Plaintiffs before) reveal that DFC had compiled a report on Dr. Cantu that included 

his personal information, including his Dr. Cantu’s complete Social Security number, which was 

later found for sale on the dark web.

38

Defendant complains that Plaintiffs' expert Jeff Fischbach produced no expert report. 

That's because Defendants' deficient production prevented him from having anything to review; 

assuming Defendants fully produce the digital evidence they've been withholding, or belatedly 

producing piecemeal, then Mr. Fischbach will be able to generate a report as necessary. But Dr. 

Guerra cannot complain of not receiving an expert report when Defendants worked jointly to 

thwart Mr. Fischbach from being able to produce one.

Accordingly, this Court should deny Defendant Dr. Guerra’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment as to the first 8 causes of action brought against her. For each of the material facts 

brought forth by Defendant Dr. Guerra, there is specific admissible evidence in the record

indicating that there is a genuine dispute of material fact. 

B. There is Competent Summary Judgment Evidence that Defendants Caused over $5000 in 

CFAA Loss

Defendant Dr. Guerra confuses CFAA damages with CFAA loss in her Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Damages under the CFAA have nothing to do with monetary loss and are 

specifically defined in nonmonetary terms. 18 USC §1030(e)(8) defines “damage” as “any 

38 See 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); Ex. N, at D 000034-54

(DFC sends background check on Plaintiff Melody Joy Cantu to Dr. Guerra); Ex. A, at D 000060-61 (Retainer

agreement between Dr. Guerra and DFC).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 12 of 18
impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information.39 18 USC 

§1030(e)(11) defines “loss” as any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of 

responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data program, 

system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or 

other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.”40 Moreover, Defendant 

relies on outdated caselaw when discussing CFAA damages, as the statute was amended in 2001 

to separately define the loss and damage provisions.

The discovery evidences that Defendants have caused well over $5000.00 in losses as a 

direct result of their unauthorized access and damage to Plaintiff’s computers and systems. 

Attached are receipts documenting Plaintiffs’ losses totaling $23,650.31.

41

Plaintiffs’ CFAA loss falls into two categories. The first set of loss arises from the 

measures Plaintiffs took to investigate and mitigate Defendants' computer intrusions. These costs 

included hiring Exhibit A Computer Forensic Investigations, LLC, a computer consulting firm,

to analyze their networks.42 The retainer alone to hire the computer consultant company was 

$5000.00, a sufficient total to warrant liability under the CFAA.

43 This category of loss also 

39 See 18 USC §1030(e)(8).

40 See 18 USC §1030(e)(11).

41 See Ex. P (billing records for computer consultant, Exhibit A Computer Forensic Investigations, LLC); Ex. F 

(billing records from Spectrum Cable); and Ex. S (billing records for medical providers).

42 See Ex. P at Dr.CantuProd#000001, 000003, 000005-14, 000016-000019 (Computer Forensic Investigations, 

LLC retainer and billing records).

43 See Ex. P at Dr.CantuProd#000005 (retainer agreement signed with Computer Forensic Investigations, LLC).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 13 of 18
includes the costs associated with having Spectrum Cable come out to the property to analyze, 

test and fix the computer networks that were unlawfully damaged by Defendants.44 Defendants 

conduct necessitated that Plaintiffs schedule multiple visits from Spectrum Cable to figure out 

what was going on with their network, as well as a Spectrum Cable upgrade.

45 The sum total of 

this category of cost is $14,565.31.46 This is well over the required CFAA loss threshold.

The second category of loss stems from the counselling and therapy necessitated by 

Defendants campaign of stalking and harassment of which their computer hacking and malicious

prosecution was part. Defendants’ computer intrusion was an integral component of their 

malicious prosecution. Defendants’ unlawful access and damage to Plaintiffs’ protected 

computers inflicted significant emotional stress. Related medical expenses are ongoing and 

currently total $9,085.00, excluding costs of prescribed medications.

47 Plaintiffs have visited Dr. 

John Seals, costing a total of $1,940.0048; Dr. Randy Pollock costing $6,945.0049; and Dr. Joann 

Murphy costing $200.0050. These costs continue to mount as Plaintiffs work through the 

psychological trauma suffered as a direct result of Defendants unlawful access and damage to 

44 See e.g. Ex. F, at MCantuProd00193-199 (service appointment scheduling and billing from Spectrum Cable to 

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

45 See e.g. Ex. F at MCantuProd00193-206 (service appointment scheduling and billing from Spectrum Cable to 

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

46 See Ex. P at Dr.CantuProd#000001; 000003; 000006-07.

47 See MCantuFinalProd#Bates 000796-828, 001619-001679 (Medical Billing Records (attached as Ex. S)).

48 See Ex. S, at 000799-000800 (Billing records from Dr. John Seals)

49 See Ex. S, at 000805-000828 (Billing records from Dr. Randy Pollock)

50 See Ex. S, at 000796-000798 (Billing records from Dr. Joann Murphy)

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 14 of 18
Plaintiffs’ networks and protected computers. Plaintiff received detailed doctor’s notes from their 

healthcare providers.51

2. Defendants violated Texas’s Harmful Access by a Computer Act

For the same reasons stated above, the record establishes that Defendants acted with 

knowledge and intent and violated Texas’s Harmful Access by a Computer Act. Dr. Guerra 

knowingly sent Plaintiffs phishing links, in violation of Texas criminal law. DFC guided Dr. 

Guerra on accessing Plaintiffs’ networks.52 Having established access, Dr. Guerra and DFC 

knowingly acted with intent to obtain information from, and damage, Plaintiffs’ computer 

network.

3. Defendants violated the Federal Wire Tap Act

Dr. Guerra is incorrect that Plaintiffs alleged she installed the cable splitter. However, Dr. 

Guerra hired DFC and DFC’s expert Shawn Kasal demonstrated a high level of knowledge of 

coaxial wiretapping technique, including military wiretapping applications.53 A reasonable jury 

could find that Defendants violated Federal Wiretap law by splicing into Plaintiffs’ network. As 

51 See MCantuPRod#Bates 000829-000848; 001512-001615, 001619-1679 (Doctor’s notes (attached as Ex. T)).

52 See 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); GUERRA 00339-46 (instructions from DFC directing 

Dr. Guerra how to deploy phishing links (attached as Ex. O)); Ex. B, at GUERRA 000081 (DFC Phase I report to 

Dr. Guerra with URL tracking link results), 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).

53 See Ex. G at 6:10-12:10. (discussing knowledge of military-grade splicing techniques, discussing methods of 

splicing, and evading further answers).

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 15 of 18
mentioned above, Spectrum Cable visited Plaintiffs’ home in-person and discovered that the 

cable splitter was not installed by anyone from their company. 

4. There is no Collateral Estoppel

Defendant mistakenly claims that the intentional infliction of emotion distress here is

related to a custody enforcement settlement in Bexar County District Court which she claims 

collaterally estops Plaintiffs’ IIED claims. However, Plaintiffs’ IIED claims, as pleaded in the 

Amended Complaint, are a direct result of Defendants’ malicious campaign of stalking, hacking, 

and surveilling towards the ultimate goal of the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff Melody Joy 

Cantu. They are not based on the mediated settlement order and Defendants cannot avoid her 

liability for their malicious hacking and prosecution of Plaintiffs by trying to pretend that this is 

merely a domestic dispute.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, this Court should deny Defendant Dr. Guerra’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and deny Dr. Guerra any further relief sought. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 16 of 18
Los Angeles, CA

Dated: October 27, 2022

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 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 17 of 18
Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 27th 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/ Michael Hassard

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112 Filed 10/27/22 Page 18 of 18