Quinn v. City of Detroit, Civil Action No. 96-40291.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 96-40291. |
| Parties | John P. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Jerry R. Swift, Eames Wilcox, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Marjory G. Basile, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.
On August 9, 1996, John P. Quinn ("Quinn") filed this action against the City of Detroit ("City") seeking monetary damages for the City's alleged infringement of his copyright to a computer program entitled the Litigation Management System/Claims Management System. Presently before this court is the City's motion for summary judgment and Quinn's motion for partial summary judgment. Also before this court is the City's motion to strike Quinn's affidavits. For the following reasons, the City's motion for summary judgment will be denied, Quinn's motion for partial summary judgment will be granted and the City's motion to strike affidavits will be denied.1
John P. Quinn was hired as a staff attorney by the Law Department for the City in 1985. After a brief hiatus, Quinn returned to the City as a staff attorney and later became Supervising Assistant Corporation Counsel on or about January 15, 1991. As Supervising Assistant Corporation Counsel, Quinn was responsible for managing the cases assigned to him personally and the cases assigned to the attorneys he supervised. Quinn supervised eight to 10 attorneys.
According to Quinn, when he was hired as a supervisor, the Law Department was doing a less than adequate job of meeting its deadlines. Quinn believed the way to ensure that attorneys met deadlines and to otherwise improve the management of cases was to use a computer program to assist with such tasks. Quinn inquired of Sharon McGinley, a consultant hired to assist the Law Department in selecting software and training people to use software, as to whether the Law Department had any computer system that Quinn could use for data management to track cases. McGinley indicated that an off-the-shelf data management software package entitled Professional File would do just that.2
Upon the advice of McGinley, Quinn purchased his very own copy of Professional File, installed the software on his computer at home and educated himself about it. Quinn soon learned that Professional File was not only a data management program, but also a fourth generation programming application, meaning it could be used to design other software packages. Using Professional File, Quinn designed a software program which constitutes the basis of this lawsuit entitled Litigation Management System/Claims Management System ("LMS").
After creating LMS, Quinn downloaded it onto the Law Department's computer system and used it to track deadlines and perform other functions necessary to manage litigation. Eventually, the majority of the employees in the litigation section, as well as personnel in other sections of the Law Department of the City, began using LMS to assist them in the performance of their duties.
Quinn incorporated into LMS a function that notified its users of his ownership of the program.3 Toward the end of 1995, however, it became apparent to Quinn that the Law Department had assumed a proprietary interest in LMS, notwithstanding Quinn's claim to ownership of the same. On or about November 20, 1995, Quinn therefore wrote a memorandum to Phyllis James, corporation counsel for the City, withdrawing his permission for its use of LMS and instructing the City to promptly inform all its employees that they must immediately discontinue use of LMS. In 1995, Quinn also retained an attorney, William J. Schramm, to register LMS in his name with the United States Copyright Office.
On or about February 9, 1996, Schramm filed for Quinn an Application for Certificate of Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. A Certificate of Registration declaring Quinn the author of LMS was thereafter obtained effective February 14, 1996.
Ultimately, on August 9, 1996, Quinn filed the instant action against the City alleging that the City had infringed his copyright by making unauthorized copies of LMS and by continuing to use LMS after Quinn withdrew his permission to use LMS. On August 28, 1997, approximately one year after Quinn instituted the action, the City filed the present motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). The City urges this court to dismiss Quinn's claim of copyright infringement for several reasons. First, the City insists that Quinn's claim for infringement must be dismissed because Quinn does not own a copyright to LMS. The City asserts that it owns LMS pursuant to the work made for hire provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976. Second, the City argues that Quinn's claim for infringement must be dismissed because Quinn does not have a valid copyright to LMS since he did not comply with the statutory formalities required to register his copyright and/or because LMS is not a copyrightable work. Third, the City claims that Quinn's claim for statutory damages and attorney's fees is meritless under the plain language of 17 U.S.C. § 412.
Notwithstanding the City's protestations, Quinn maintains that his claim of copyright infringement should survive. First, Quinn contends the work made for hire provisions of the Copyright Act are inapplicable here, and therefore the City does not own the copyright to LMS pursuant to them. In fact, Quinn requests that this court enter summary judgment in favor of him on this issue. Quinn also contends that he has a valid copyright because he has complied with all statutory formalities in registering LMS with the United States Copyright Office and because LMS is copyrightable. Lastly, Quinn argues that he is entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees, but he encourages this court to defer ruling on this issue until a later time in these proceedings.
On November 14, 1996, the City filed a motion to strike various affidavits Quinn submitted to this court both in support of his motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the City moves to strike: (1) the affidavit of plaintiff John P. Quinn dated September 29, 1997, (2) the affidavit of William J. Schramm dated September 28, 1997, and (3) the affidavit of Joseph J. Toland dated October 8, 1997.4 The motion to strike is extremely untimely. The motion to strike was filed on the eve of the hearing regarding the summary judgment motions,5 and was filed in excess of one month after the affidavits were submitted to this court. Indeed, the motion to strike was filed, without warning, after the court had performed the majority of its research regarding the various summary judgment motions.6 Since the motion was untimely filed, it will not be considered.7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) empowers the court to render summary judgment "forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is no genuine issue of material fact when the "record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The court must decide "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." In re Dollar Corp., 25 F.3d 1320, 1323 (6th Cir.1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). "The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat the otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must consider all evidence together with all inferences to be drawn therefrom "in light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Ass'n., Inc., 630 F.2d 1155, 1158 (6th Cir.1980).
If the movant meets the standard specified at Rule 56(c), then the opposing party must come forth with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." First National Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 270, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1583, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The non-moving party "is not entitled to a trial merely on the basis of allegations; significant probative evidence must be presented to support the complaint." Kraft v. United States, 991 F.2d 292, 296 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976, 114 S.Ct. 467, 126 L.Ed.2d 419 (1993); Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986). And, "if the adverse party does not respond, summary judgment, if appropriate shall be entered against the adverse party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71, 96 S.Ct. 598, 603-04, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); O'Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826-27 (6th Cir. 1994).
In order to succeed on his claim of copyright infringement, Quinn must show the following: (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.8 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleurimond v. N.Y. Univ.
...that he was employed to do. We find such a narrow position regarding the scope of employment unpersuasive.”); Quinn v. City of Detroit, 988 F.Supp. 1044, 1051 (E.D.Mich.1997) (designing computer programs was not the kind of work that a managing attorney for a city's law department was hired......
-
Libertas Techs., L.L.C. v. Cherryhill Mgmt., Inc.
.... . . ." together with the page containing the copyright notice. 37 C.F.R. § 202.20(c)(2)(vii)(A)(1). See also Quinn v. City of Detroit, 988 F. Supp. 1044, 1052 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Where the source code contains trade secrets, the process for registering a copyright is more involved and requ......
-
Gilpin v. Siebert, CV05-427-ST.
...organizing and updating the laboratory and the computer program helped with organization. On the other hand, Quinn v. City of Detroit, 988 F.Supp. 1044, 1051 (E.D.Mich. 1997) found that designing computer programs was not the kind of work that a managing attorney for a city's law department......
-
Genzmer v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade
...he wrote the software at issue in his home, using his home computer, during off-duty hours. He compares his case to Quinn v. City of Detroit, 988 F.Supp. 1044 (E.D.Mich.1997), where the court held that the defendant had not satisfied the second step of the test because the plaintiff had dev......
-
Copyright and Open Access: Reconsidering University Ownership of Faculty Research
...(4th Cir. 1994); Genzmer v. Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Quinn v. City of Detroit, 988 F. Supp. 1044 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Roeslin v. Dist. of Columbia, 921 F. Supp. 793 (D.D.C. 1995); City of Newark v. Beasley, 883 F. Supp. 3 (D.N.J. 1995); Mi......