Naicom Corporation, et al. v. DISH Network Corporation, et al.

i Q UESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) or § 1965(d) authorizes nationwide service of process and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over out-ofdistrict defendants in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

2. Whether absolute prosecutorial immunity bars civil damages claims against federal prosecutors for investigative and administrative conduct that is not intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

3. Whether the law-enforcement safe harbors in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f); the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e); the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(e); and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1833(a)(1), reach a warrantless re-entry into a private digital facility conducted after the authorizing warrant has been fully executed and returned.

4. Whether the courts below misapplied Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal by treating a defendant's asserted lawfulinvestigation explanation as an "obvious alternative explanation" that defeats plausibility at the pleading stage, and by requiring a civil