For example, McCarthy dismissed as irrelevant a case the prosecution cited as a precedent: People v. Lawton, where a library patron was accused of violating the law by circumventing security measures in place on library computers and accessing internal library resources without authorization. The judge disagreed that Lawton has anything to do with the Childs case, as it involves a non-employee, among other considerations. But McCarthy used another case, Chrisman v. City of Los Angeles while discussing the three dismissed charges. The Chrisman case involved a police officer who used city resources to perform background checks on celebrities, his girlfriend, and acquaintances while on duty and without authorization.
However, the Chrisman ruling contains the statement "these cases show that an employer's disapproval of an employee's conduct does not cast the conduct outside the scope of employment. If the employer's disapproval were the measure, then virtually any misstep, mistake, or misconduct by and employee involving and employer's computer would, by respondent's reasoning, be criminal." This is essentially the core reasoning that caused McCarthy to dismiss the three counts related to the modems. You might think that it would also directly apply to the "denial of service" charge.