Mohr v. Sci. & Eng'g Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 5:14-cv-00045-MHH |
| Citation | 204 F.Supp.3d 1281 |
| Parties | Michael MOHR, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.; Science and Engineering Services, LLC; SES Holding Co., Inc.; and Harold G. Sowers, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Michael K. Beard, Jane L. Mauzy, William R Andrews Marsh Rickard & Bryan PC, Michael J. Douglas, Leak & Douglas PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
David C. Tobin, Tobin O'Connor & Ewing, Washington, DC, Roderic G. Steakley, L. Franklin Corley, IV, Sirote & Permutt PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.
Michael Mohr served with honor in the United States Army, where he was trained in aircraft maintenance and repair. Following his discharge, Mr. Mohr used the skills he had acquired as an aviation mechanic to secure a job at DynCorp International performing maintenance on Apache helicopters. While at DynCorp, Mr. Mohr not only honed his skills as an aviation mechanic but also taught himself how to write computer programs.
When DynCorp secured a contract with Boeing Company to depopulate Apaches, Mr. Mohr became involved in that project. "Depopulation" is one part of a recycling process for aircraft parts. During depopulation, thousands of parts are removed from an aircraft. Some of the removed parts are assembled into manufacturing kits for re-use on a new model. Some of the removed parts are held as replacements for parts on the existing model. Other parts are simply scrapped.
To facilitate the laborious and detailed manual work of disassembling aircraft, on his own initiative, Mr. Mohr developed a computer program that generated Excel spreadsheets to help DynCorp mechanics track the parts of the helicopters that they depopulated. Mr. Mohr's programming skills became so valuable to DynCorp that the company eventually changed Mr. Mohr's job title from mechanic to computer programmer, and tracking parts and otherwise supporting the depopulation effort with information technology became Mr. Mohr's primary assignment. Ultimately, Mr. Mohr's efforts contributed to the creation of the Aviation Maintenance Inventory Program (AMIP), a computer program that allowed DynCorp to substantially increase the efficiency of the depopulation process.
When Boeing moved its depopulation work to Science and Engineering Services, Inc., Mr. Mohr moved too. Mr. Mohr brought his copy of AMIP to SES and registered a copyright on the AMIP computer program.
At SES, Mr. Mohr deployed AMIP to support the Apache depopulation effort and then copied AMIP to create BMIP for the depopulation of Blackhawk helicopters and DMIP for the depopulation of Apache Delta model helicopters. Mr. Mohr made numerous changes to the AMIP, BMIP, and DMIP source code to address requests from SES personnel and clients, add new functionality, and fix errors. Mr. Mohr also drafted a license that gave SES permission to use AMIP under certain conditions.
As the use of AMIP and its related programs grew, Mr. Mohr became concerned that the terms of the license were not being honored. Mr. Mohr also felt that his working environment had become hostile. Mr. Mohr raised his concerns with the management at SES, but the resulting negotiations failed to produce an agreement to purchase or a new license for AMIP. Subsequently, Mr. Mohr sent a letter of involuntary resignation to SES and instituted this civil action.
In this lawsuit, Mr. Mohr asserts claims against Science and Engineering Services, Inc., Science and Engineering Services, LLC, SES Holding Co., Inc., and Harold G. "Bud" Sowers. (Doc. 35, pp. 2-3).1 For ease of reference, in this opinion, the Court will refer to the defendants collectively as SES. Mr. Mohr asserts against SES a federal cause of action for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, accounting, defamation, intentional interference with business relations, conspiracy, and fraud. (Doc. 35). The defendants have filed a counterclaim, in which they ask the court to declare that Mr. Mohr's copyright is invalid. (Doc. 43). This matter is before the Court on Mr. Mohr's motion for partial summary judgment on his copyright infringement claim and the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Mr. Mohr's claims. (Docs. 73, 76).
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite "to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
When considering a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence in the record and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc. , 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir.2015). "If the movant bears the burden of proof on an issue, because, as a defendant, it is asserting an affirmative defense, it must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any element of that defense." International Stamp Art, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service , 456 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2006) (citing Martin v. Alamo Community College Dist. , 353 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir.2003) ).
"In practice, cross motions for summary judgment may be probative of the nonexistence of a factual dispute, but this procedural posture does not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions of material fact exist." Georgia State Conference of NAACP v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs , 775 F.3d 1336, 1345 (11th Cir.2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt , 700 F.2d 341, 349 (7th Cir.1983) ). "If both parties proceed on the same legal theory and rely on the same material facts ... the case is ripe for summary judgment." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Shook v. United States , 713 F.2d 662, 665 (11th Cir.1983) ).
Michael Mohr joined the U.S. Army in 1999. (Doc. 27, p. 31; Doc. 75-36, pp. 4–5). After completing basic training, Mr. Mohr received advanced individual training as "an aircraft engine mechanic on the Kiowa, Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopters." (Doc. 27, p. 31). The Army assigned Mr. Mohr to a duty station in Germany, where Mr. Mohr continued to learn about the assembly, maintenance, and repair of various types of aircraft. (Doc. 27, p. 31). Beginning in 2004, Mr. Mohr served a one-year tour of duty in Iraq as a platoon sergeant. (Doc. 27, p. 32; Doc. 75-36, p. 4). Following his service in Iraq, Mr. Mohr was honorably discharged from the Army. (Doc. 27, p. 32).
In 2005, Mr. Mohr returned home to Texas and found work with DynCorp as an aircraft mechanic at the San Angelo Army Facility. (Doc. 27, pp. 32–33; Doc. 75-12; Doc. 75-36, p. 4). DynCorp is a government contractor. While working for DynCorp, Mr. Mohr met Harold "Bud" Sowers, a civilian government employee who worked in the Army's Apache project management office. (Doc. 27, pp. 33–34; Doc. 75-5, ¶ 3). Among other duties, Mr. Sowers oversaw the Army's depopulation of Apache helicopters. The Army used this process to disassemble older-model Apaches, track the condition of the parts that were removed, and package certain parts for re-use on upgraded Apaches. (Doc. 27, pp. 34–35; Doc. 33, pp. 271–72; Doc. 72-3, pp. 11–16; Doc. 75-5, pp. 2–3). The parts that were not incorporated into a new Apache model were stored for later use as replacement parts on the current model or disposed of as scrap. (Doc. 33, pp. 271–72; Doc. 86-4, ¶ 6).
The depopulation process initially took place at the Corpus Christi Army Depot and at a facility in Mesa, Arizona run by the Boeing Company, the manufacturer of the Apache helicopter. (Doc. 33, p. 272; Doc. 75-36, p. 4; Doc. 72-3, p. 10). Later, some aircraft were sent to San Angelo for depopulation, and parts were shipped from San Angelo to Boeing or Corpus Christi for repair or use in the manufacture of new Apaches. (Doc. 75-36, p. 4; Doc. 86-4, ¶ 6; Doc. 33, p. 271). When San Angelo first became involved in the depopulation program, Mr. Mohr and the other mechanics carrying out the depopulation process used printed parts lists and handwritten tags to manually track parts as mechanics removed them from the aircraft. (Doc. 72-3, p. 18; Doc. 75-5, ¶ 6; Doc. 33, pp. 272–73; Doc. 86-4, ¶ 3; Doc. 75-10, pp. 14–15).
To aid in the labelling of the thousands of parts for each helicopter, Corpus Christi hired Robbins-Gioia, a program management services company, to develop a computer program "to print the tags and also track the parts as they came off of the aircraft." (Doc. 75-5, ¶ 6; see also Doc. 33, pp. 273–74; Doc. 75-3, ¶ 4). The program developed by Robbins-Gioia was called the Programmed Depot Maintenance Scheduling System or PDMSS. (Doc. 75-16, p. 2; Doc. 75-5, ¶ 6). After the Army transferred some of the depopulation work from Corpus Christi to San Angelo, Miles Keller and Mark Sampson, two Robbins-Gioia employees, installed Zebra printers and implemented a version of the PDMSS program at San Angelo. (Doc. 75-4; Doc. 75-5, ¶¶ 9–11; Doc. 75-62; Doc. 33, pp. 276–79; Doc. 86-4, ¶¶ 8–9; Doc. 27, p. 39; Doc. 75-3, ¶¶ 10–30; Doc. 75-8, ¶¶ 2–10; Doc. 75-33, pp. 18–19; Doc. 75-9; Doc. 75-11; Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haddley v. Next Chapter Tech., Inc.
...where the copyright owner could not produce a copy of the source code as it existed when he registered his copyright. 204 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1298 (N.D. Ala. 2016). Instead, the Court explained that the copyright owner hit an "evidentiary roadblock" because it prevented the Court from examini......
-
Bell v. Maloney
...by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer." Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07(2) (2006). See Mohr v. Sci. & Eng'g Servs., 204 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1294 (N.D. Ala. 2016). However, it appears that no court has adopted the Restatement (Third) in this context. No party raises this te......