UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1062
ADEPTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00383-LMB-JFA)
Argued: December 7, 2012 Decided: December 28, 2012
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Peter Linn Goldman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jerry Cuomo, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD, PC, Newark, New
Jersey, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark S. Landman, LANDMAN,
CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD, PC, New York, New York, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Adeptech Systems, Inc. (“Adeptech”) appeals the
district court’s grant of Appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation’s (“FM”) motion for summary judgment. The district
court’s entry of judgment terminated Adeptech’s action against
FM, which asserted claims under Virginia law arising out of
Adeptech’s negotiation with FM to supply it with loan review
software created by Visionet Systems, Inc. (“Visionet”). For
the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The district court concluded that the evidence provided by
Adeptech was insufficient to create any genuine issue of
material fact, and thus found judgment against Adeptech
appropriate as a matter of law. As relevant to this appeal, the
district court rejected Adeptech’s breach of contract claim,
holding that no reasonable interpretation of the confidentiality
agreement between FM and Adeptech prevented FM from discussing
Adeptech’s confidential pricing information with Visionet,
Adeptech’s bidding partner. The district court similarly
rejected Adeptech’s civil conspiracy claim because Adeptech
supplied no evidence to support its allegations that FM and
Visionet had formed a secret agreement to cut Adeptech out of
the software deal in order to deprive Adeptech of fees owed it
as the “value-added reseller” of the software.
2
The district court also denied Adeptech’s motion for
spoliation sanctions, finding that Adeptech failed to show FM
had purposefully destroyed relevant email evidence in
anticipation of litigation, crediting instead the evidence that
FM had destroyed the emails at issue pursuant to its normal
document retention policies.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, affirming only if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to Adeptech, fails to create a genuine issue of
material fact. Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir.
2012). We review the district court’s denial of Adeptech’s
motion for spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion. See
Vulcan Materials Co. v. Massiah, 645 F.3d 249, 260 (4th Cir.
2011).
Having carefully reviewed the evidence of record, briefs,
and applicable law and considering the parties’ oral arguments,
we affirm the entry of summary judgment for the reasons stated
by the district court in its thorough opinion. See Adeptech
Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 11-cv-383-LMB-
JFA, 2011 WL 6820184 (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2011). We also affirm
the decision to deny Adeptech’s motion for spoliation sanctions
as well within the district court’s exercise of its broad
discretion.
AFFIRMED
3