UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

TECHTARGET, INC. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

) 

ENSCONCE DATA TECHNOLOGY, INC. ) COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

 ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________)

INTRODUCTION

 This action arises from defendant Ensconce Data Technology Inc.’s (“Ensconce” or 

“Defendant”) the wrongful refusal to pay plaintiff TechTarget, Inc. (“TechTarget” or “Plaintiff”) 

more than $144,530.771

—exclusive of costs and fees—for advertising services TechTarget 

performed pursuant to a series of advertising contracts (collectively, the “Contracts”) by and 

between the parties. By its Complaint, TechTarget seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant’s 

breach of contract (Count I), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), unjust 

enrichment (Count III) and violation of RSA 358-A (Count IV). 

 As further support for its claims, TechTarget states as follows: 

I. PARTIES

1. TechTarget is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business at 117 

Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494. 

 

1 This amount represents a principal balance of $136,648.56, plus contractually mandated late fees of $7,882.21 

(1.5% of principal for every 30 days payment is late). This is a calculation from the date the last invoice was due, 

and is provided herein for illustrative purposes only. TechTarget anticipates that Ensconce’s actual late fees far 

exceed the amount reflected above. TechTarget expressly reserves the right to amend its calculation of late fees. 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 6
2

2. Ensconce is a New Hampshire corporation with a principal place of business at 

100 Market Street, Suite 203, Portsmouth, NH 03801. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The District Court of the United States for the District of New Hampshire has 

jurisdiction in this matter under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in that it is a civil action 

between residents of different states, and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and 

costs, exceeds, $75,000. 

4. This Court is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, among 

other things, Ensconce resides in the District of New Hampshire.

II. RELEVANT FACTS

5. TechTarget publishes integrated media that enable information-technology (IT) 

marketers to reach targeted communities of IT professionals and executives in all phases of the 

technology decision-making and purchase process. 

6. Ensconce is the producer of Dead on Demand TM products which purportedly provide 

effective solutions for hard drives that are lost, stolen or in need of proper sanitization. 

7. Ensconce communicated an interest in utilizing TechTarget’s advertising services to 

market its products and services. 

8. On or about May 25, 2006, Ensconce and TechTarget signed the first in a series of 

Contracts with TechTarget, pursuant to which TechTarget agreed to perform certain advertising 

services on behalf of Ensconce. 

9. Thereafter, Ensconce executed several additional Contracts with TechTarget. In 

accordance with the Contracts, Target Tech invoiced Ensconce for advertising services performed. 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 6
3

10. From at or near the outset of their business relationship, Ensconce failed to pay 

TechTarget’s invoices in a timely manner. Notwithstanding such failures, TechTarget worked with 

Ensconce in a good faith effort to facilitate Ensconce’s payment of its outstanding obligations to 

TechTarget. 

11. Among other things, TechTarget assented to several payment plans (with TechTarget 

reserving all of its rights, claims and remedies), pursuant to which Ensconce repeatedly promised to 

satisfy its outstanding obligations through a series of monthly installment payments. Despite 

TechTarget’s good faith and cooperative efforts, Ensconce consistently failed to honor its payment 

obligations to TechTarget. 

12. All told, Ensconce has failed to pay substantially all amounts due under twenty-one 

separate invoices dated May through November 2007 (collectively, the “Invoices”). The aggregate 

amount due under the Invoices—exclusive of interest, costs and fees—is $136,648.56. 

13. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions common to each of the Contracts, Ensconce 

also agreed that TechTarget is entitled to monthly a late fee of 1.5%, plus all costs of collection and 

attorneys’ fees. 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 3 of 6
4

COUNT I

(Breach of Contract) 

14. TechTarget repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 

as if fully set forth herein. 

15. Pursuant to the Contracts, TechTarget agreed, among other things, to perform certain 

advertising services for Ensconce, and Ensconce agreed to pay TechTarget for those services. 

16. TechTarget has fully performed its obligations under the Contracts. 

16. Ensconce breached the Contracts by, inter alia, failing to pay TechTarget in 

accordance with the Contracts. 

17. TechTarget has suffered significant financial damages of at least $144,530.77 as a 

result of Ensconce’s breaches of the Contracts, for which Ensconce is liable. 

COUNT II

(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 

18. TechTarget repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 

as if fully set forth herein. 

19. Ensconce’s actions have deprived TechTarget of the fruits and benefits of the 

Contracts and constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

20. As a result, TechTarget has suffered financial damages for which Ensconce is liable. 

21. TechTarget, therefore, is entitled to compensation for its efforts on behalf of 

Ensconce. 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 4 of 6
5

COUNT III

(Unjust Enrichment) 

22. TechTarget repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

21 as if fully set forth herein. 

23. TechTarget conferred a benefit upon Ensconce. 

24. Ensconce accepted and appreciated the benefit conferred to it by TechTarget. 

25. It is inequitable for Ensconce to retain the benefit without paying for the full and 

complete value thereof. 

26. As a result, TechTarget has suffered substantial financial damage in an amount to be 

determined at trial. 

COUNT IV

(Violation of NH Consumer Protection Act; RSA 358-A) 

27. TechTarget repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

26 as if fully set forth herein. 

28. RSA 358-A:2 prohibits those engaged in trade and commerce in this State from 

engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices or acts. 

29. Ensconce’s conduct and omissions as described herein, including entering into an 

agreement for products and services, and falsely and repeatedly promising to pay for those product 

or services, violated RSA 358-A. 

30. Pursuant to RSA 358-A:10, TechTarget is entitled to bring a private action in order to 

redress any harm it has suffered resulting from defendant’s violations of RSA 358-A. 

31. TechTarget is entitled to recover statutory or actual damages from Ensconce in 

accordance with RSA 358-A:10. 

32. Given the circumstances, Ensconce’s violations of RSA 358-A are properly deemed 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 5 of 6
6

to be willful and/or knowing violations of said statute. In accordance with RSA 358-A:10, 

TechTarget is therefore entitled to recover enhanced damages in this matter as determined by the 

Court. 

33. TechTarget is further entitled to recover its costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees in accordance with RSA 358-A:10, as determined by the Court. 

34. As a result of Ensconce’s violations of RSA 358-A:10, TechTarget suffered 

significant financial damages and harm. 

 WHEREFORE, TechTarget demands that the Court: 

i. enter judgment in favor of TechTarget on each Count of the Complaint; 

ii. award TechTarget damages, plus its attorneys’ fees, interest, late fees and costs; 

iii. enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant for multiple damages, plus 

costs, interest and attorney’s fees for its violation of RSA 358-A:10 for multiple 

damages, plus costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees; and 

iv. enter such additional relief as it deems just and equitable. 

JURY DEMAND

 TechTarget hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

TECHTARGET, INC. 

 By its attorneys, 

 /s/ Christopher M. Waterman___________ 

 Christopher M. Waterman, BNH# 17904 

 Demeo & Associates, P.C. 

 One Lewis Wharf 

 Boston, MA 02110 

 (617) 263-2600 

Dated: November 21, 2008 cwaterman@jdemeo.com 

45485.1 

Case 1:08-cv-00483-PB Document 1 Filed 11/24/08 Page 6 of 6