information at his personal email account and that this was not for an Agilysys business-related purpose. Plaintiffs policy on internet access could be interpreted in various ways, and while the Court expects in the future that the attorneys in this case will debate linguistics and the policy’s meaning and enforcement, the Court must accept the allegations in Amended Complaint as true. Doing so, the Court finds that, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to state a plausible claim. The parties have hotly debated this issue. The Court recognizes the split in this District as well as across the Circuits regarding the broad and narrow views of the CFAA and the use of information versus the access to information.. See, e.g., United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508, 523-28 (2d Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Under a narrower view, Courts “reject any
recognizing circuit split recognizing a split of authority on this issue recognizing split holding that district court may consider  3553a2a and noting circuit split on the issue recognizing the circuit split and noting that this sharp division means that the statute is readily susceptible to different interpretations