Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02234/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02234-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 03-CV-2234-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASSET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAGNON, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No: 03-CV-2234-B(CAB)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION,

RETURNING THE CASE TO THE

NINTH CIRCUIT AND

DEFERRING THE PENDING

MOTION ON ATTORNEY COSTS

AND FEES

On August 25, 2006, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment brought

by Plaintiff Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. (“AMS”) the counterclaims of Defendant and

Counterclaimant Kevin Gagnon (“Gagnon”). Following summary judgment, AMS

stipulated to the withdrawal of its counter-counterclaims. Gagnon then filed for

interlocutory appeal on the summary judgment on his counterclaims.

At that point, the case was transferred to this Court because of the disability of the

prior judge. This Court was initially concerned about the validity of the summary judgment

Case 3:03-cv-02234-B-CAB Document 172 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

03-CV-2234-B (CAB)

and indicated its desire to reconsider the motion which resulted in the initial grant of

summary judgment. Consequently, the case comes now to this Court on limited remand

from the Ninth Circuit to permit this Court to entertain a motion for reconsideration. (Order

of the Ninth Circuit April 16, 2007; docket no. 165.) On August 10, 2007, Gagnon filed

with this court a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order of

August 25, 2006. Gagnon moves for reconsideration on the issues of implied license as a

defense to copyright infringement and to the claims which rely on trade secret

misappropriation. Gagnon also moves for reconsideration on the ruling regarding the

validity of the employee work agreements.

The Court has now fully considered both parties’ briefs on this motion, as well as

the original briefing and supporting exhibits to the original summary judgment motion. 

The Court finds that there are no grounds presented by Defendant which necessitate any

change to the Court’s August 25, 2006 order. Defendant presents no new evidence or

argument that was not previously considered by the Court. The Court also finds no

showing of error or other circumstance which would justify reconsideration.

The Court therefore confirms its order of August 25, 2006 and refers to the recitation

of findings and legal reasoning therein. The Court confirms its prior ruling that AMS had

an implied license to the computer programs, and thus a valid defense to copyright

infringement. The Court also confirms its ruling that the computer programs including the

source code were not trade secrets and thus no actionable claims for misappropriation

against AMS may be maintained. Finally, since the programs including the source code did

not constitute trade secrets, the Court finds that any consideration of the validity

employment restraints if there were to be trade secrets is moot. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-02234-B-CAB Document 172 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

03-CV-2234-B (CAB)

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED and the case is

returned to the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, as to AMS’ pending motion for fees and

costs (Docket no. 147), the Court DEFERS this motion until the resolution of the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: September 5, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:03-cv-02234-B-CAB Document 172 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3