United States v. Singla
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 1:21 -CR-00228-MLB-RDC |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. VIKAS SINGLA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON
Pending before this Court is Defendant Vikas Singla's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for lack of specificity or for a Bill of Particulars, [Doc. 29]. The Government filed its brief opposing this motion on June 30, 2022, [Doc. 38]. Mr. Singla filed his reply brief on September 1, 2022, [Doc. 45]. Following careful review of the parties' pleadings counsels' oral arguments (R. 50), and the applicable law this motion is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment be GRANTED and that his request for a Bill of Particulars be DENIED AS MOOT.[1]
Mr. Singla is charged in an eighteen-count Indictment with offenses involving violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (“CFAA”). [Doc. 1]. Count One states:
On or about September 27, 2018, in the Northern District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, VIKAS SINGLA, aided and abetted by others unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly caused and attempted to cause the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and, as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused and attempted to cause damage without authorization to a protected computer - that is, one or more computers used by Gwinnett Medical Center that operated the Duluth, Georgia hospital's Ascom phone system - and the offense caused and would, if completed, have caused: a. loss to Gwinnett Medical Center during the one-year period from SINGLA's course of conduct affecting protected computers aggregating at least $5,000 in value; b. the modification, impairment, and potential modification and impairment of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment and care of one or more individuals; and c. damage affecting at least 10 protected computers during a one-year period in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(5)(A), (b) and (c)(A)(B) and Section 2.
[Doc. 1 at 2].
Counts Two through Seventeen (which include a Table identifying sixteen printers as “protected computers”) allege the following:
On or about September 27, 2018, in the Northern District of Georgia and elsewhere, as specified in the following table, the defendant, VIKAS SINGLA, aided and abetted by others unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly caused and attempted to cause the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and, as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused and attempted to cause damage without authorization to a protected computer - that is, one or more computers used by Gwinnett Medical Center in the Duluth and Lawrenceville, Georgia hospitals that operated the printers identified in the following table - and the offense caused and would, if completed, have caused: a. loss to Gwinnett Medical Center during the one-year period from SINGLA's course of conduct affecting protected computers aggregating at least $5,000 in value; and b. the modification, impairment, and potential modification and impairment of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment and care of one or more individuals. . .in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(5)(A), (b), and (c)(4)(B) and Section 2.
Count Eighteen alleges:
On or about September 27, 2018, in the Northern District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, VIKAS SINGLA, aided and abetted by others unknown to the Grand Jury, intentionally accessed and attempted to access a computer without authorization and exceeded and attempted to exceed authorized access to a computer, and thereby obtained and attempted to obtain information from a protected computer, that is, a Hologic R2 Digitizer used by Gwinnett Medical Center in the Lawrenceville, Georgia hospital, and the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C), (b), (c)(2)(B)(i), and Section 2.
[Id. at 5].
All of these Counts incorporate by reference the introduction that states Gwinnett Medical Center (“GMC”) was a not-for-profit health care network that provided health care services for two hospitals located in the Northern District of Georgia. [Doc. 1 at 1]. Mr. Singla was the chief operating officer of a network security company that provided services to the health care industry. [Id. ]. According to the Government, Mr. Singla committed a cyberattack against GMC's Lawrenceville and Duluth hospitals between September 27, 2018 and October 2, 2018. [Doc. 26 at 1]. This attack temporarily interrupted GMC's internal telecommunications system causing GMC's printers to begin printing several sheets of paper. [Id. ] As a result, Mr. Singla obtained the names and dates of birth of GMC patients. [Id. ]. After GMC publicly denied it had been the victim of a cybersecurity breach, an unknown person posted the names of some of the patients and their dates of birth on the social networking service Twitter in order to contradict GMC's denial. [Id. at 1-2]. The Government believes Mr. Singla was the person responsible for posting this confidential information. [Id. at 2].
As agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation began conducting their investigation into this incident (beginning as early as September 27, 2018), GMC retained the services of the King and Spalding, LLP law firm and a consulting firm - PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP - to assist in its breach remediation efforts. [Doc. 26 at 2]. On June 8, 2021, a grand jury returned the pending Indictment against Mr. Singla alleging the above listed offenses. [Doc. 1].
Mr. Singla submits that the Indictment must be dismissed because it lacks the specificity required by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(iii) and 7(c)(1)[2]. The alleged deficiencies include the absence of essential facts “necessary for [him] to prepare his defense, avoid prejudicial surprise, or plead double jeopardy.” [Doc. 29 at 3]. The essential facts he claims are missing in the first seventeen counts include the nature of the “transmission” that occurred, the “program, information, code or command” he allegedly transmitted, the “damage” his conduct caused to the “protected computers,” whether all of the computers mentioned throughout the Indictment were the “protected computers” that were compromised, what “loss” GMC allegedly sustained and how his conduct “modified]” “impair[ed], or “potentially] modif[ied] or impair[ed],. .the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment or care of one or more individuals.” [Doc. 29 at 10-11]. These factual omissions are particularly problematic, he argues, given the highly technical nature of the elements of the charged offenses. [Id].
As for Count Eighteen, Mr. Singla avers that the Indictment is insufficient because it fails to explain how he allegedly “exceeded” or “attempted to exceed authorized access” to a computer, whether he was notified by GMC of the limitations of his access, to what degree his access was “without authorization,” which computer he allegedly accessed without the requisite authorization and how the device described in this Count qualifies as a “protected computer” as defined by the CFAA. [Doc. 29 at 11-12]. Based on these myriad omissions, Mr. Singla argues that the Indictment is constitutionally infirm and due to be dismissed.[3]
The Government argues Mr. Singla's claims are meritless because the Indictment provides the factual specificity required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 (c)(1) and Circuit precedent. [Doc. 38 at 2-3]. It asserts that Mr. Singla “does not lack the information necessary for him to understand the charges filed against him and prepare his defense,” noting that his detailed pretrial motions undermine his argument that he is unaware of the nature of the criminal allegations or would suffer “prejudicial surprise” if required to defend himself against the Indictment in its present form. [Doc. 38 at 7]. The Government also argues that Mr. Singla's claimed inability to raise a double jeopardy claim is specious because the Indictment includes descriptions of the “protected computers,” their locations, and the dates he allegedly attacked them “in each count of the indictment.” [Id. at 9]. Moreover, in reference to the “protected computers” listed in Counts Two through Seventeen, the Government emphasizes that the Indictment specifically identifies them as “computers used by Gwinnett Medical Center in Duluth and Lawrenceville, Georgia hospitals that operated the printers [listed in the Table] by their make, model, device identifier, and their assigned IP address.” [Id. ]. The fact that the Indictment tracks the language of the statutes, provides dates of the alleged events and “identifies numerous specific factual details,” the Government continues, it is sufficiently specific. [Id. at 4].
Lastly, the Government avers that the “essential facts” Mr. Singla claims are missing have either already been produced in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 16 (a)(1) (Rule governing Discovery and Inspection) or consist of “legal questions that do not need to be briefed in the indictment.” [Doc. 38 at 5]. Because the Government believes Mr. Singla is merely seeking disclosure of evidence pertaining to its trial strategy - as opposed to facts needed to adequately inform him of the charges against him - it submits dismissal of the Indictment and disclosure of the requested evidence are unwarranted.
In response, Mr. Singla reiterates his assertion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial