You are on page 1of 35

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.

SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. and MILE HIGH EQUIPMENT LLC, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN A. BROADBENT, Defendant.

COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc. (“SII”) and Mile High Equipment LLC (“Mile High”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) state as follows for their complaint against John A. Broadbent (“Broadbent”): INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought to address defendant Broadbent’s computer fraud and abuse

in accessing and downloading electronic files containing a massive amount of Plaintiffs’ confidential information in the days prior to the resignation of his employment, and making false and misleading representations that he had returned all electronic files to Plaintiffs, as well as the impairment of the integrity of this information caused when Broadbent subsequently transferred it to a computer not issued or owned by Plaintiffs that Broadbent was and is using for a new venture that, among other things, develops and markets technology to Plaintiffs’ competitors. -1-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19

This conduct violates the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breaches Broadbent’s contractual and fiduciary duties and his duty of loyalty, and violates the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §7-74-101 et seq. FACTS The Parties and Jurisdiction 2. Plaintiff SII is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Vernon Hills, Illinois. SII is a holding company and the ultimate parent company of Mile High. 3. Plaintiff Mile High is a Colorado limited liability company with its principal place Mile High is engaged in the business of designing,

of business in Denver, Colorado.

manufacturing and selling ice machines, ice dispensers, ice bins and related equipment (collectively, the “ice machine equipment”) under the “Ice-O-Matic” brand name. 4. Defendant Broadbent is a citizen of Colorado residing in Centennial, Colorado.

Broadbent was employed as a key executive in Plaintiffs’ ice machine equipment business, as described below. Broadbent left such employment to join a new, start-up venture that develops ideas and technology for improving ice machine equipment and markets those ideas and technologies to ice machine equipment manufacturers that compete with Plaintiffs (the “New Venture”). 5. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 and 18 U.S.C. §1030 and supplemental jurisdiction over all other counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19

Plaintiffs’ Development of Confidential Information And Broadbent’s Access to That Information 6. The market for ice machine equipment is highly competitive, with market

participants constantly attempting to develop new and different products and features, improve marketing efforts, maintain and expand market penetration, reduce manufacturing costs and increase sales. In particular, the development of new and improved products and technology is central to effective competition in the ice machine equipment marketplace. Plaintiffs have invested substantial sums of dollars identifying new product and product improvement ideas and opportunities, researching and developing those ideas and opportunities, and designing new products and product improvements for the ice machine equipment marketplace. 7. Broadbent became employed by Mile High as its Director of Marketing in August

2001, and later became its Vice President of Engineering in May 2002, a position he held until January 2010. In January 2010, he became Vice President of Research and Development Americas, with research and development responsibility for both of SII’s ice machine equipment manufacturing companies in the United States, including Mile High. After this last change in title, Broadbent remained a Mile High employee, receiving his salary, benefits and W-2 forms from Mile High and continuing to work from Mile High’s facility in Denver, Colorado, until he resigned his employment. 8. As a result of his engineering and product development positions, Broadbent

became deeply knowledgeable about Plaintiffs’ products and was part of a small group of key executives responsible for helping Plaintiffs in their effort to improve their product offerings and to identify, research and develop new and improved product ideas and opportunities. Broadbent

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19

had access to, and participated in the development of, a wealth of non-public, confidential, and highly valuable information regarding Plaintiffs’ ice machine equipment business. 9. Mile High maintains electronic document and data storage systems and servers

(the “Company Systems”), and Plaintiffs’ confidential information was, at all relevant times, maintained on those systems and servers. Mile High issued a laptop computer to Broadbent for his use in performing his duties (the “Company Laptop”).

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 10. herein. 11. The Company Laptop is a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth

§1030(e)(2), in that it was used by Broadbent, for the benefit of Plaintiffs, to engage in interstate and foreign commerce and communication, including email communications with individuals located in foreign states and countries, and to otherwise conduct Plaintiffs’ ice machine equipment business across state lines, via the internet. 12. Broadbent was not authorized to use the Company Laptop or the Company

Systems to download company files, especially files containing confidential information, for retention and use after his departure. Broadbent was not authorized to retain or possess any company files, and especially files containing confidential information, after cessation of his employment.

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19

13.

Broadbent used the Company Laptop to engage in conduct that was not

authorized by Plaintiffs. Specifically, on December 27, 2010 – one week before he informed the Plaintiffs of his resignation: (a) Knowing of his impending resignation and intending to obtain confidential

information from the Company Computer and the Company Systems for his post-employment use in working for the New Venture and for the benefit of its actual and prospective clients, including without limitation, competitors of Plaintiffs (the “Competitive Work”), Broadbent attached a portable, detachable hard drive (the “Portable Hard Drive”) to his Company Computer, without authorization from Plaintiffs; and (b) Knowing of his impending resignation and intending to obtain confidential

information from the Company Computer and the Company Systems for his post-employment Competitive Work, Broadbent issued to the Company Computer a command that caused it to download onto the Portable Hard Drive electronic files that included a massive amount of confidential information from the Company Computer and the Company Systems, without authorization from Plaintiffs. 14. On January 3, 2011, the Monday following his massive downloading of

confidential information onto the Portable Hard Drive, Broadbent orally notified Plaintiffs that he was resigning. Broadbent later presented written confirmation of his resignation in the form of a letter dated January 6, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. From and after Broadbent’s downloading of Plaintiffs’ electronic files onto the

Portable Hard Drive, Broadbent failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that he had downloaded that information and created an unauthorized copy of that information on the Portable Hard Drive. -5-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19

Broadbent did not reveal this information when he gave oral notice of his resignation, when he submitted his written letter of resignation, or at any time thereafter. 16. Moreover, Broadbent answered falsely on January 10, 2011 when Plaintiffs

specifically asked him to confirm that he had not downloaded any electronic files or otherwise possessed any such files on any kind of portable storage device. On that date, Broadbent signed a “Departing Employee Acknowledgment” in which he affirmatively represented as follows: I have returned to the Company all documents and materials in my possession regarding the Company’s designs, drawings, processes, programs, research and development, engineering, product development, procedures, formulas, techniques, inventions, ideas, marketing and sales data and programs, customers, suppliers, financial data, manufacturing costs, pricing, computer programs, computer data, customer service protocols, competitors, competitive analysis, actual or prospective acquisition candidates and opportunities, and sales and marketing plans and strategies; I have not retained any copies of any such documents or materials, in either paper or electronic form; I have returned to the Company all other Company property, including all computers, software, computer disks, electronic data storage devices, cell phones, pagers, keys, credit cards, and building passes and other access devices to the Company premises; and I have turned over to the Company all portable electronic data storage devices (including disks, thumb drives, flash drives, back-up drives, etc.) that I have used in connection with my Company-issued computer. A copy of this Acknowledgement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 17. On January 27, 2011, after learning through a third-party forensic analysis of the

Company Laptop that Broadbent had, in fact, connected a Portable Hard Drive and downloaded Plaintiffs’ confidential information onto that drive, Plaintiffs met with Broadbent, informed him that they had discovered his use of the Portable Hard Drive and demanded its return. When told that forensic evidence clearly revealed that he had connected a particular serial-numbered hard

-6-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19

drive to his Company Laptop one week before his notice of resignation, Broadbent finally admitted that he had attached the Portable Hard Drive to his Company laptop, loaded it with Plaintiffs’ confidential information, retained that drive after his resignation, and continued to possess it. 18. Plaintiffs demanded that Broadbent immediately turn over the Portable Hard

Drive, and he did so the next day, on January 28, 2011. 19. Before turning over the Portable Hard Drive to Plaintiffs, however, Broadbent

connected that hard drive to another laptop computer (the “Home Computer”) – one that was not owned or issued by Plaintiffs and that Broadbent was and is using to perform Competitive Work for the New Venture – and copied certain of Plaintiffs’ confidential information from the Portable Hard Drive onto the Home Computer. Broadbent did not seek or receive permission to download any files to the Home Computer – or to retain them in any place or in any form – and he kept his downloading and possession of this electronic information secret from Plaintiffs. 20. Over one week later, and only after Plaintiffs pressed Broadbent for a

representation that he no longer possessed any of Plaintiffs’ written or electronic confidential information, Broadbent admitted that, before turning over the Portable Hard Drive, he had connected that drive to the Home Computer and had downloaded certain of Plaintiffs’ confidential information from the Portable Hard Drive onto the Home Computer. Broadbent’s admission occurred only after Plaintiffs insisted the representation be included in a consulting agreement that Broadbent proposed and sought to negotiate with -Plaintiffs in order to earn consulting fees in exchange for helping transition his research and development work to other

-7-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19

Mile High employees.

Negotiations regarding that consulting agreement failed and the

agreement was never executed. 21. Broadbent’s lack of authorization to engage in the conduct described above is

reflected, for example, in various documents signed by him, including the following: 22. On August 21, 2001, Broadbent and Mile High (then known as Mile High

Equipment Company) executed a Confidentiality Agreement (the “2001 Confidentiality Agreement”) in which Broadbent agreed not to communicate or disclose any of Mile High’s confidential information and not to “utilize or make available any such knowledge or information, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the soliciting of or acceptance of employment with any competitor of the company.” Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. (a) On July 30, 2002, Broad and Mile High executed a NonA copy of the 2001 Confidentiality

Disclosure/Confidentiality Agreement for Mile High Equipment Company Employees (the “2002 Confidentiality Agreement”) in which Broadbent agreed, among other things: (i) not to disclose or to use “trade secrets” for as long as they are protected by the law and not to disclose or to use “confidential information” for a period of two years after his departure from Mile High; (ii) to deliver to Mile High upon termination of his employment all “records, notes, files, manuals, drawings, plans and like items” – as well as “all copies thereof” relating to, containing, or disclosing any inventions, confidential information or trade secrets of Mile High; and (iii) not to directly or indirectly engage in any activity that would conflict with his obligations to, or compete with the business of, Mile High, including “the planning, preparation or establishment of a competing business.” A copy of the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D. -8-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19

(b)

On one or more occasions, including February 20, 2008, Broadbent signed

an “Acknowledgement” (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E) affirming and representing that he had received, understood, and intended to comply with Mile High’s Company Guidelines (portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit F) that, among other things, required protection of confidential information; prohibited theft of company property, removal of company property from company premises and the unauthorized disclosure of Mile High’s confidential information; and required employees to return to Mile High all company files and other property prior to their departure. (See, e.g., Exh. F at pp. 7, 8, 11, and 26 of Company Guidelines) 23. In addition to contracting and agreeing not to use or disseminate Mile High’s

confidential information and to return all such information to Mile High prior to his departure, Broadbent went further. On January 10, 2011, Broadbent executed a “Departing Employee Acknowledgment” in which he specifically represented that he had returned all company documents and materials in his possession, had not retained any copies, “in either paper or electronic form,” and had turned over “all portable electronic data storage devices (including disks, thumb drives, flash drives, back-up drives, etc.) that [he had] used in connection with [his] Company-issued computer.” A copy of this Acknowledgement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 24. Broadbent’s representations in January of 2011 were false statements of material

fact and Broadbent knew they were false when he made them. Broadbent’s failure to inform Plaintiffs that he had downloaded their confidential information, and was retaining that information, for use after his resignation constitutes an omission of material fact. Broadbent made these material misrepresentations and omissions to deceive Plaintiffs and induce them not -9-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19

to seek return of the files and information that Broadbent had improperly obtained and thereby to secretly retain possession of Plaintiffs’ confidential information for Competitive Work. 25. Thus, Broadbent’s conduct described above was undertaken with the intent to

defraud and did, in fact, further the fraud. 26. The damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Broadbent’s conduct includes the

impairment of the integrity of Plaintiffs’ data and information, the Company Computer, and the Company Systems, as well as impairment of the availability of the unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ confidential information to Plaintiffs. Once Broadbent downloaded the electronic files containing Plaintiffs’ confidential information onto the Portable Hard Drive, the security and integrity of those files and the Company Systems and Company Computer was breached, those files were thrust outside of Plaintiffs’ control and protection, and the integrity of Plaintiffs’ computer, computer system, files and information was impaired. A vivid illustration of this impairment is the ease with which Broadbent transmitted Plaintiff’s information to his Home Computer. Plaintiffs’ investigation into Broadbent’s conduct, and the damage caused thereby is continuing. 27. By engaging in the conduct described above, Broadbent knowingly, intentionally,

and without authorization or in excess of his authorization: (a) accessed the Company Computer and thereby obtained information, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C); (b) with intent to defraud, accessed the Company Computer and thereby

furthered the intended fraud and obtained something of value, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4); -10-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19

(c)

transmitted a “program, information, code, or command,” and as a result

of such conduct caused “damage,” as described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1030(a)(5)(A); and (d) accessed the Company Computer, and as a result of such conduct caused

loss and “damage,” as described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1030(a)(5)(A) and (a)(5)(C). 28. Plaintiffs are authorized to maintain this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§1030(g), because the conduct described above resulted in a loss to Plaintiffs totaling more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), including without limitation the cost of responding to, and conducting a damage assessment of, Broadbent’s conduct. For example, Plaintiffs have incurred the cost of a third-party forensic analysis of the Company Laptop and the Portable Hard Drive that was performed to investigate and uncover the nature, extent and impact of Broadbent’s unauthorized conduct, for which Plaintiffs have paid well over five thousand dollars ($5,000).

COUNT II — BREACH OF CONTRACT 29. herein. 30. Mile High was converted from a Colorado corporation to a Colorado limited Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth

liability company on September 30, 2006 in accordance with the Colorado Corporations and Associations Act, Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 7-90-101 et seq. Pursuant to Col. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-202,

-11-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19

therefore, Mile High is the same entity that entered into both the 2001 Confidentiality Agreement and the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement as Mile High Equipment Company. 31. The 2001 Confidentiality Agreement and the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement are

valid and binding contracts with Mile High. Mile High has fully complied with any and all obligations under those contracts. 32. Broadbent has breached his contractual obligations by engaging in the conduct

described above by, for example, copying and downloading electronic files containing Plaintiffs’ confidential information in the days prior to his resignation, for the purpose of retaining that information for post-employment Competitive Work, and by in fact retaining that information for such use. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Broadbent’s breaches of contract, Plaintiffs

have suffered and will continue to suffer great injury and damage, in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DUTY OF LOYALTY 34. herein. 35. As a key executive of Plaintiffs entrusted with confidential information, Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through and 32 as if fully set forth

Broadbent owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as well as duties of confidentiality and loyalty. 36. Broadbent’s conduct described above, including his improper acquisition of

Plaintiffs’ electronic files and his misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions to Plaintiffs,

-12-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19

violated his duties, and is the proximate cause of great injury, damage, and detriment to Plaintiffs.

COUNT IV — MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS 37. herein. 38. The files that Broadbent downloaded onto the Portable Hard Drive from the Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully set forth

Company Laptop and the Company Systems included, among others, research and development information, designs, drawings, specifications, manufacturing information, product quality information, profitability data and analyses, and business plans and strategies, all of which information is not known to the public or to Plaintiffs’ competitors and all of which would be useful and valuable to Plaintiffs’ competitors by, for example, enabling those competitors to avoid research and development costs, know about and anticipate Plaintiffs’ new product plans and other strategies, and to more effectively respond to those plans and strategies, and to more successfully compete with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have spent substantial sums developing this

information, and competitive use of that information would yield an unfair advantage in the marketplace that would result in millions of dollars of sales gained or lost. 39. Plaintiffs have taken reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of their

confidential information, including but not limited to the following: (a) security cameras; facilities are secured with locks, electronic keypads, alarm systems and

-13-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19

(b) visitors; (c)

the reception area is staffed by a receptionist who monitors and logs all

facilities are locked before and after business hours, and during business

hours, no visitors are allowed beyond the reception area unless authorized by an employee; (d) “need to know” basis; (e) Company Systems are pass code protected and access to Company employees have access to both paper and electronic documents only on a

Systems is segmented and allowed only on a need to access basis; (f) documents; (g) key employees must acknowledge their notification of, and agreement to, shredders are located on site and used to dispose of sensitive paper

the Plaintiffs’ strict non-disclosure and return-of-property requirements, for example, as embodied in the agreements attached as Exhibits C and D hereto; (h) employees are required to acknowledge their notification of, and

agreement to, “Company Guidelines,” portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit F, and which require both confidentiality as well as return of all company files and property upon departure; and (i) Plaintiffs hold exit interviews of their departing employees in which

Plaintiffs confirm the return of all company records and other property.

-14-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19

40.

The information contained in the files downloaded by Broadbent onto the

Portable Hard Drive therefore include “Trade Secrets” under Colorado law, as embodied in the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §7-74-101 et seq., in that the information is “scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other information relating to [Plaintiffs’] business or profession which is secret and of value” and Plaintiffs “have taken measures to prevent the secret from becoming available to persons other than those selected by [them] to have access thereto for limited purposes.” 41. Broadbent’s conduct described above (including but not limited to Broadbent’s

use of deception and breach of his duties of confidentiality and loyalty to obtain and retain control over the downloaded files for the purpose of retaining those files after the termination of his employment for the purpose of Competitive Work; his refusal to return those files to Plaintiffs despite his contractual obligation, and plaintiffs’ demand, that he do so; and his disseminating those files to the hard drive of the Home Computer) constitute misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the CUTSA. Moreover, his conduct, especially in light of the important confidential information possessed by Broadbent, and in light of his demonstrated disregard for the integrity and rightful ownership of that information, makes it clear that continued and future misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ confidential information is also threatened. 42. Broadbent’s violations of the CUTSA described above have been and will be the

proximate cause of substantial injury, damage, and detriment to Plaintiffs.

-15-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19

43.

Some, if not most, of the injury and damage suffered by Plaintiffs is and will be

irreparable. For example, the New Venture that Broadbent has joined as chief technology officer, and for which he uses the Home Computer, develops ideas and technology for improving ice machines and markets those ideas and technologies to ice machine equipment manufacturers that compete with Plaintiffs. By not immediately disclosing to Plaintiffs his decision to go to work for the New Venture and instead keeping that plan secret and remaining in his position with Plaintiffs, Broadbent was able to obtain and retain possession of Plaintiffs’ confidential information and to engage in the improper computer fraud and abuse – and deception – described above. 44. Broadbent is now working for the New Venture and engaged in the design and

development of ice machine equipment improvements and marketing those improvements to competitors of Plaintiffs. And Broadbent has downloaded and has retained – on his Home Computer, the very same computer that he is using to perform Competitive Work – electronic files containing Plaintiffs’ confidential information that he copied from his Company Laptop and the Company Systems onto the Portable Hard Drive. 45. Plaintiffs have demanded that Broadbent turn over the Home Computer for

inspection to allow Plaintiffs to verify that their confidential files and information have been removed and that he sign a statement confirming that he owns the Home Computer and consents to that inspection under procedures acceptable to Plaintiffs and, most importantly, describing his handling of the Plaintiff’s confidential files and information and assuring Plaintiffs that their files and information are not at risk of further dissemination.

-16-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19

46.

While Broadbent claims the only files and information of Plaintiffs that he copied

from the Portable Hard Drive to the Home Computer concerned a single, discrete research and development project on which he had been working for Plaintiffs before his resignation and that all such files and information now have been removed from the Home Computer, Plaintiffs have been unable to secure the inspection of the Home Computer or the signed statement described above, despite repeated efforts to work with Broadbent to obtain them. Consequently, without the ability to obtain sworn deposition testimony and other discovery through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs cannot determine the full extent to which its confidential files and information may have been misappropriated and disseminated as a result of Broadbent’s conduct and the measures necessary to address the situation. 47. Plaintiffs will, absent the equitable intervention of this Court, suffer irreparable

injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law because, for example, their valuable confidential information is being and will continue to be held and disseminated by someone not authorized to hold or disseminate it. The confidential information would be valuable if used against Plaintiffs in the marketplace, and their business relationships with others will be irreparably damaged. Once used by or disclosed to a competitor, the value of the confidential property may be reduced or even lost forever, and Plaintiffs would suffer lasting and irreparable effects from the unfair competition that would result from improper use and disclosure of such confidential information.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc. and Mile High Equipment LLC request the following relief: -17-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19

1. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief: (a) requiring Broadbent to immediately return to Plaintiffs all documents and

files (whether in paper or electronic form) belonging to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to those copied, in whole or in part, from the Company Computer, the Company Systems or the Portable Hard Drive (the “Copied Files”); (b) requiring Broadbent to immediately produce each of the following for

inspection and removal of all Copied Files: the Home Computer and all other storage media and devices, including but not limited to computers, hard drives, disks, flash drives, thumb drives, back-up drives and memory sticks, that were used to access, store, transfer, disseminate, download, copy, or transmit any of Plaintiffs’ files or information, including the Copied Files; (c) enjoining the possession, use and disclosure of any of Plaintiffs’ files or

information, including the Copied Files; and (d) containing other provisions sufficient to give Plaintiffs the benefit of the

bargain contained in the agreements and acknowledgements executed by Broadbent and to protect Plaintiffs’ confidential information from future and continued unauthorized use, dissemination and disclosure; and 2. Damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all of their compensable injuries; 3. Broadbent’s unjust enrichment and disgorgement of all benefits in an amount to be proven at trial; 4. Compensation and reimbursement for all expenditures reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiffs to respond to Broadbent’s conduct, including to investigate and determine the nature, extent and impact of that conduct and to determine which files were improperly

-18-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19

downloaded, accessed and/or transmitted by Broadbent, and to what extent Plaintiffs’ information, computers, and computer systems were misused, altered, damaged, or deleted by Broadbent; 5. Pre-judgment interest; 6. Attorneys’ fees and costs; 7. An accounting and a constructive trust as to all funds, property and other benefits received by Broadbent as a result of his wrongdoing; 8. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and 9. Such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs hereby request trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: July 8, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nina Y. Wang____________________ Nina Y. Wang FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203-4532 Telephone: (303) 607-3500 Facsimile: (303) 607-3600 Email: nwang@faegre.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc. and Mile High Equipment LLC

-19-

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-1

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-2

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-2

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-3

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-3

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-3

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-3

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-4

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-4

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-4

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-4

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-7

Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 9

Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-CV-01793-JLK- KLM SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.; and MILE HIGH EQUIPMENT, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN A. BROADBENT, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S SECOND UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE AGAINST OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT – AND – CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A Defendant John A. Broadbent (“Defendant”), through his attorneys, Bohn Aguilar, LLC, respectfully moves this Court for a twenty (20) day enlargement of time to and including October 3, 2011, within which to answer, move against or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Although uncontested, Defendant states the following in support of this motion: 1. By Order dated August 10, 2011, Defendant was granted a first enlargement of

time to and including September 12, 2011, within which to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The parties continue to discuss various matters in controversy between them, and the requested additional time may assist them in reaching a resolution as to some or all of those matters.

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 9

Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

2.

Plaintiffs stipulate to the relief requested herein so long as Defendant agrees not

to use this extension (or the fact that no response to the complaint is on file) to oppose or support any motion that might be filed by either party. 3. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, undersigned counsel conferred with

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Linda Stevens, by email dated September 8, 2011, before filing this motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated to the enlargement of time requested herein subject to the condition above. 4. This enlargement of time will not unduly delay these proceedings or unfairly

prejudice any party. Only one other extension has been requested to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 5. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E, a copy of this motion is being served upon

Defendant John Broadbent. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of time to and including October 3, 2011, within which to answer, move against or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. A proposed form of order is filed herewith. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of September 2011. BOHN AGUILAR, LLC By: s/ Michael G. Bohn Michael G. Bohn 1670 Broadway, Suite 3000 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 832-2494 Email: mbohn@bohnaguilar.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JOHN A. BROADBENT 2

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 9

Filed 09/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9th day of September 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANT’S SECOND UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE AGAINST OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT–AND –CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Linda K. Stevens Kevin J. Byrne SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 lstevens@Schiffhardin.com kbyrne@Schiffhardin.com John A. Broadbent johnallenbroadbent@gmail.com s/Michael G. Bohn Michael G. Bohn Nina Wang FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3200 Denver, Colorado 80203 nwang@faegre.com

3