Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02181/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02181-2/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Health Information Services, Inc., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

DigiStor, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2181-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' second motion for civil contempt (doc. 39),

defendants' response (doc. 42), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 43). We also have before us

defendants' unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply (doc. 45), and the proposed surreply (doc. 46). 

On February 1, 2007, we entered an order denying plaintiffs' first motion for civil

contempt, and ordering that defendants' "shall, no later than February 9, 2007, produce for

joint inspection by the parties, their lawyers and plaintiffs' IT expert the ACT! database

currently in their possession." Order at 3 (doc. 38). Plaintiffs now move for civil contempt

on the ground that defendants failed to produce the ACT! database as required by this court's

order. In response to the motion, defendants' attorney, James MacKinlay, states that he wrote

a letter to plaintiffs' counsel on February 2, 2007, offering to make available the ACT!

database. On February 12, 2007, after plaintiffs' motion for contempt was filed, Mr.

Case 2:06-cv-02181-FJM Document 52 Filed 03/19/07 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

- 2 -

MacKinlay discovered that the letter was inadvertently never mailed. Defendants took no

other action to comply with our order. Thereafter, defendants offered to produce only a

redacted version of the ACT! database, clearly not in compliance with the order. Ultimately,

on February 20, 2007, defendants made available for plaintiffs' inspection an unredacted

copy of the database, containing customer information that had not previously been disclosed

to plaintiffs. 

It appears that defendants are engaging in a pattern of obstructing plaintiffs' efforts

to obtain customer and business information to which they are lawfully entitled. It is not

enough that defendants' counsel wrote a letter offering to produce the database, then

inadvertently failed to send it. By virtue of our order, the burden was on defendants to

ensure that the database was produced no later than February 9th. Their failure to do so was

a violation of our February 1, 2007 order. 

Moreover, following an evidentiary hearing, we concluded that "plaintiffs presented

competent evidence establishing that defendant Vincent Burr told Frank Yaconis and Barry

Neel, prior to the consummation of the stock purchase agreement, that he would provide

them with a copy of the ACT! database." Order at 2 (doc. 38). The evidence established

that Burr showed Yaconis and Neel a copy of the software box so that they could purchase

the necessary software in order to receive the transfer of the database information. Id.

Plaintiffs now assert that their inspection revealed that the database contains 1,900 customer

contacts, including numerous historical contacts made to existing HIS customers and

prospective customers that were not previously disclosed. Defendants' failure to previously

disclose this information is a violation of the October 10, 2006 permanent injunction (doc.

15). 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt (doc.

39). Defendants shall pay all costs, expenses and attorney's fees that plaintiffs incurred in

prosecuting this motion and in attending the February 20, 2007 meeting. Further, defendants

are hereby ordered to produce to plaintiffs no later than March 23, 2007, an unredacted copy

Case 2:06-cv-02181-FJM Document 52 Filed 03/19/07 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

- 3 -

of the ACT! database for the purpose of transferring the database information to plaintiffs'

software. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to file a sur-reply

(doc. 45). 

DATED this 16th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02181-FJM Document 52 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3