Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01176/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01176-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

- 1 - 06cv1176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASSET MARKETING SYSTEMS

INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1176 JM(MCc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

WILLIAM J. MCLAUGHLIN, JR.; THE

MCLAUGHLIN FINANCIAL GROUP,

LLC; and SENIOR RESOURCES

SERVICES, LLC.,

Defendants.

Both Plaintiff Asset Marketing Systems Insurance Services, LLC. (“AMS”) and

Defendants William J. McLaughlin, Jr., The McLaughlin Financial Group, and Senior

Resource Services (collectively “McLaughlin”) move for reconsideration of this court’s

August 20, 2007 order granting in part and denying in part cross motions for summary

judgment or summary adjudication (“Order”). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this

matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reason set forth below,

both motions for reconsideration are denied.

Case 3:06-cv-01176-WMC Document 62 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The court incorporates its Order as if fully set forth herein. Reconsideration is generally

appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations

omitted). 

- 2 - 06cv1176

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration1

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this court’s findings that (1) genuine issues

of material fact preclude granting summary judgment on the issue of whether or not

McLaughlin willfully infringed AMS’s copyrights and (2) AMS failed to meet their

summary judgment burden to show that McLaughlin failed to return an alleged missing

original binder to AMS upon termination of the parties’ contractual relationship. The

court denies reconsideration on the raised grounds. 

With respect to the issue of willful infringement, the court notes that summary

judgment is generally inappropriate where intent is at issue. See Sega Enterprises Ltd.

v. Maphia, 948 F.Supp. 923, 936 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“Generally, a determination as to

willfulness requires an assessment of a party’s state of mind, a factual issue that is not

usually susceptible to summary judgment.”). Moreover, that is particularly true where,

like here, the parties identify genuine disputed issues of material fact as set forth in the

parties’ submissions and the court’s Order. (Order at p.13:10 - 14:4). 

With respect to the return of the original binder, the court notes that, as identified

in the Order, AMS failed to satisfy its summary judgment burden to demonstrate a

disputed genuine legal or factual issue. (Order at p.6:17-23, Docket No. 49). In

opposition to McLaughlin’s motion for summary adjudication on the narrow issue

raised by the alleged failure to return the binder, AMS set forth a five sentence

opposition, (Oppo. at p.21:19-28, Docket No. 43), and the only evidence cited was the

Akerstein declaration. The Akerstein declaration, (Docket No. 43-6), did not even

address the return of the binder. Consequently, AMS failed to meet its evidentiary

burden and summary judgment was appropriately entered in favor of McLaughlin on

this claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (opposing party who

Case 3:06-cv-01176-WMC Document 62 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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 2

 . The court notes that these declarations are not newly discovered within the meaning of

ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

- 3 - 06cv1176

bears the burden of persuasion at trial has burden to designate “specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial”). In its motion for reconsideration, AMS cites for

the first time the declarations of Bob Olsen and Dee Costa to create genuine issues of

material fact with respect to the return of the binder.2

 Even assuming the identified

declarations are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the merits,

Defendants’ failure to cite this evidence in opposition to McLaughlin’s motion for

summary adjudication is a complete failure of proof. It is not the role of the court to

mine the record to identify genuine issues of material fact to support the arguments

presented. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 990 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991) (“district

court is under no obligation to mine the full record for issues of triable fact”). Rather,

that is the role of the parties, not the court. 

In sum, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as it fails to

identify any newly discovered facts, change in intervening law, or manifest injustice.

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

Defendants move for reconsideration of this court’s finding that portions of

McLaughlin’s March 28, 2006 handout violated Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials as a

matter of law. Defendants do not argue that newly discovered evidence or changes in

the law warrant relief. Rather, McLaughlin contends that the court did not appreciate

nor “recognize the total dissimilarity of the topics,” (Motion at p.11:9-10), between the

March 28, 2006 handout and AMS’s copyright and therefore relief should be granted

to avoid a manifest injustice. The court denies the motion for reconsideration. 

The thrust of McLaughlin’s argument is that the AMS materials are entitled to

only “thin” protection and therefore only verbatim copying constitutes infringement as

a matter of law. This argument is not persuasive. The court notes that such terms as

“thin” and “broad,” as used in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435

(9th Cir. 1994), Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.2003), and Ets-Hokin v. Skyy

Case 3:06-cv-01176-WMC Document 62 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 06cv1176

Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2004), are helpful to describe the extreme ends of

the copyright continuum but are simply another way of stating that “[o]riginality

remains the sine qua non of copyright.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone

Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991). The greater the variations of expression

of a work, the greater the copyright protection. See Apple, 35 F.3d at 1146-47.

Conversely, limited or narrow variations of expression result in limited copyright

protection. Id. Here, there is little doubt that AMS’s copyright is afforded only limited

copyright protection because of the limited degree of originality demonstrated by the

materials. 

As set forth in the Order, “[t]he originality of the 10 Ways Senior Program is

demonstrated by the arrangement, selection, and identification of topics touching on

financial considerations for seniors.” (Order at p.9:27 - 10:2). A comparison of AMS’s

copyrighted materials to McLaughlin’s materials of January 12, 2006 and March 28,

2006 reveals that McLaughlin copied constituent elements of AMS’s materials as a

matter of law. (Plaintiff’s Exhs. 1, 18, 20). The January 12, 2006 materials are

verbatim copies of AMS’s materials. The March 28, 2006 materials modified and made

minor changes to AMS’s handouts. However, McLaughlin continued to copy the

arrangement, selection, layout, and the expressions of the ideas contained therein.

(Plaintiff’s Exhs. 1, 20). The “modifications to the materials are relatively minor and

infringe AMS’ protectable interests.” (Order at p.12:9-10). Consequently, there is no

genuine issue of material fact that McLaughlin’s materials of January 12, 2006 and

March 28, 2006 infringe constituent elements of AMS’ copyright.

In sum, the court denies both motions for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-01176-WMC Document 62 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 4