GG Insurance Services Incorporated v. Myles Johnson, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 GG Insurance Services Incorporated, No. CV-23-01964-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Myles Johnson, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Certain defendants seek reconsideration of the summary judgment order. (Doc. 16 276.) The motion essentially asks the court “to rethink what the court has already thought 17 through—rightly or wrongly.” Ramirez v. Medtronic Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 977, 1005 (D. 18 Ariz. 2013) (simplified). Reconsideration is not appropriate. 19 According to defendants, the court committed clear error in addressing plaintiff GG 20 Insurance Services Inc.’s (“GG’s”) claims under the Copyright Act. (Doc. 276 at 2.) 21 According to defendants, “GG’s copyright claims rest on the contention that Turbo’s 22 software performed similar functions to Quote Monkey. But functionality—the process 23 and methods by which software operates—is categorically excluded from copyright 24 protection.” (Doc. 276 at 2.) The court’s order explicitly discussed the issue defendants 25 now claim was overlooked. The court noted it could only consider “elements that are 26 protectable by copyright” and “ideas, process, and elements common to similar products 27 are not copyrightable.” (Doc. 272 at 8.) Summary judgment was not proper, however, 28 because there were protectable similarities between the products other than functions, and 1 || because an original combination of unprotected elements may be protectable. (Doc. 272 at 2|| 8-9.) 3 Defendants disagree with that conclusion, claiming the summary judgment order’s “reference to GG’s allegation that ‘no competitor besides Turbo uses elements so similar 5|| to QM’ ... does not appear to be supported by record evidence adduced at summary 6 || judgment.” (Doc. 276 at 6.) Although the order inadvertently cited to the second amended 7\| complaint, the evidence the court intended to cite supports its conclusion that the products 8 || share more than similar functions. Plaintiff's expert identified “architectural similarities” || between the Turbo Software Product and QM, despite “multiple other architectures” being || available to solve the same problem. (Doc. 237-4 at 77-78, 153.) The expert also evaluated 11 |} “other companies identified as possibly being in the same industry or having similar || technology” and determined all of them “were missing components implemented by both 13 || Turbo Software Product and Garzella Group.” (Doc. 237-4 at 88.) Similarly, a declaration 14]| from Dan Garzella states he is “not aware of any company in our industry that knows or 15} uses” GG’s combination of features to implement the same functions, except for Turbo. (Doc. 247-1 at 8.) The court’s statement that the Turbo Software Product’s elements were 17 || closer to QM’s than any other competitor is a fair inference drawn from the evidence 18 || presented at summary judgment. 19 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 276) is DENIED. 20 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2026. 21

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

-2-