` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 400
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`3:16-CV-3255-G
`
`))))
`
`))
`
`)))
`
`CSI LITIGATION PSYCHOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`DECISIONQUEST, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the court is the motion for partial summary judgment filed by the
`
`plaintiff CSI Litigation Psychology, LLC (“CSI”) (docket entry 27). For the reasons
`
`stated below, the motion is denied.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`CSI and the defendant DecisionQuest, Inc. (“DecisionQuest”) are competing
`
`jury consulting companies. Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (“Motion”) at 2 (docket entry 28). The defendant Ann T.
`
`Greeley (“Greeley”) serves as DecisionQuest vice president and as a jury consultant
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID 401
`
`for the company. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) ¶¶ 2, 20
`
`(docket entry 21).
`
`Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. (“Kanasky”), a jury consultant at CSI, published two
`
`articles entitled Derailing the Reptile Safety Rule Attack: A Neurocognitive Analysis and
`
`Solution (“Derailing”) and Debunking and Redefining the Plaintiff Reptile Theory
`
`(“Debunking”). Id. ¶¶ 15, 17; see Appendix in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (“CSI Appendix”) at APP004-019, 022-031 (docket entry 29).
`
`CSI obtained federal copyrights to both works.1 CSI placed the works on its website,
`
`and distributed them to current and potential clients. Complaint ¶ 18. Additionally,
`
`Kanasky presented the papers to various seminars. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`Greeley subsequently authored an article entitled A Brief Primer on the
`
`ReptileTheory of Trial Strategy: Plaintiff Psychology and the Defense Response (“Primer”)
`
`and distributed the paper at the American Bar Association annual conference in
`
`2015. Id. ¶ 21; see CSI Appendix at 034-051. Greeley listed Derailing and Debunking
`
`in the reference section of Primer. See CSI Appendix at APP051. CSI asserts that
`
`Greeley plagiarized Dr. Kanasky’s work by copying portions of two sections of
`
`The United States Copyright Office issued CSI Litigation Psychology,
`1
`LLC, a Certificate of Registration (Number TX 8-256-027) for Derailing with an
`effective date of October 17, 2016 and first publication date of April 1, 2014 and a
`Certificate of Registration (Number TX 8-256-024) for Debunking with an effective
`date of October 17, 2016 and first publication date of April 30, 2014. See CSI
`Appendix at APP020, 032.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID 402
`
`Debunking and one section of Derailing into Primer and subsequently presenting Primer
`
`to the same type of clients hired by CSI. Complaint ¶ 22; Motion at 5-7.
`
`On November 21, 2016, CSI commenced this action against DecisionQuest.
`
`On April 25, 2017, CSI amended its complaint and added Greeley as a party. CSI
`
`asserts claims of federal copyright infringement and unfair competition and also seeks
`
`a permanent injunction. See generally Complaint.
`
`CSI moves for summary judgment only on its copyright infringement claim
`
`against DecisionQuest. Motion at 1. CSI asserts that “[a] partial summary judgment
`
`as to liability at this juncture will narrow and streamline discovery and other issues
`
`and conserve this Court’s and the Parties’ resources.” Id. at 2. Specifically, CSI
`
`moves the court for a ruling that there are no fact issues regarding (1)” CSI’s
`
`ownership of a valid copyright which DecisionQuest copied in its article: A Brief
`
`Primer on the Reptile Theory of Trial Strategy: Plaintiff Psychology and the Defense Response
`
`(“Primer”)” and (2) “DecisionQuest, without authorization and in an especially
`
`flagrant and obvious way, exactly copied word-for-word extensive portions of
`
`Plaintiff’s works.” Id. (emphasis in the original).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Evidentiary Burdens on Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence on file show
`
`that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, and that the moving party is
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID 403
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56.2 “[T]he substantive law
`
`will identify which facts are material.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
`
`248 (1986). The movant makes such a showing by informing the court of the basis
`
`of its motion and by identifying the portions of the record which reveal there are no
`
`genuine material fact issues. See Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
`
`(1986). Once the movant makes this showing, the nonmovant must then direct the
`
`court’s attention to evidence in the record sufficient to establish that there is a
`
`genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 323-24. To carry this burden, the
`
`opponent must do more than simply show some metaphysical doubt as to the
`
`material facts. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 475
`
`U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, it must show that the evidence is sufficient to
`
`support a resolution of the factual issue in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. All
`
`of the evidence must be viewed, however, in a light most favorable to the motion’s
`
`opponent. Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59
`
`(1970)).
`
`The disposition of a case through summary judgment “reinforces the
`2
`purpose of the Rules, to achieve the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
`actions, and, when appropriate, affords a merciful end to litigation that would
`otherwise be lengthy and expensive.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Company, 780 F.2d 1190,
`1197 (5th Cir. 1986).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID 404
`
`B. Copyright Infringement
`
`To prevail on a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate
`
`”(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the
`
`work that are original.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, 499
`
`U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). “In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration
`
`made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute
`
`prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the
`
`certificate. . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); see also General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee, 379
`
`F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir. 2004) (“A certificate of registration, if timely obtained, is
`
`prima facie evidence both that a copyright is valid and that the registrant owns the
`
`copyright.”). CSI has established valid ownership in Derailing and Debunking.
`
`To establish copying, a plaintiff must prove factual copying and substantial
`
`similarity. General Universal Systems, 379 F.3d at 141. CSI may show factual copying
`
`“either with proof of direct evidence of copying or through circumstantial evidence
`
`demonstrating both (1) that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and
`
`(2) that the two works are ‘probatively’ similar.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`DecisionQuest has conceded access “[s]ince Greeley gave attribution to Dr. Kasansky
`
`in Primer. . . .” See Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (“Response”) at 8 (docket entry 31); Motion at 4. Probative
`
`similarity requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the works “when compared as a
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID 405
`
`whole, are adequately similar.” Peel & Company v. The Rug Market, 238 F.3d 391, 397
`
`(5th Cir. 2001). Reasonable minds could differ on the issue of probative similarity.
`
`Id.
`
`Next, a “side-by-side comparison must be made between the original and the
`
`copy to determine whether a layman would view the two works as ‘substantially
`
`similar’” to protectable elements of the infringed work. Id. at 395 (citation omitted);
`
`see also General Universal Systems, 379 F.3d at 142. The Fifth Circuit has advised:
`
`Although this question typically should be left to the
`factfinder, summary judgment may be appropriate if the
`court can conclude, after viewing the evidence and drawing
`inferences in a manner most favorable to the nonmoving
`party, that no reasonable juror could find substantial
`similarity of ideas and expression. If, after the plaintiff has
`established its prima facie case, the defendant offers
`evidence of independent creation, the plaintiff has the
`burden of proving that the defendant in fact copied the
`protected material.
`
`Peel & Co., 238 F.3d at 395 (citations omitted); Flowserve Corporation v. Hallmark
`
`Pump Company, No. 4:09-CV-0675, 2011 WL 1527951, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20,
`
`2011) (“[T]here are few instances in which courts in the Fifth Circuit have granted
`
`summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff on a copyright infringement claim.”).
`
`CSI contends that Greeley copied substantial portions of its protectable
`
`elements. For example, CSI claims that Greeley copied 90 out of 110 words from a
`
`section of Debunking in mostly the same order and maintains that the original
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:16-cv-03255-G Document 35 Filed 01/19/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID 406
`
`ordering of any unoriginal sentences demonstrates similarity. Motion at 5. On the
`
`other hand, DecisionQuest claims that CSI took most of the language from common
`
`sources. Response at 8; see also id. at 1 (“The portions of Plaintiff’s work found in
`
`the Debunking article that Defendants allegedly copied are not protectable for lack of
`
`originality as the terminology used in Debunking is identical to Wikipedia citations
`
`regarding, priming, direct priming and repetition priming.”).
`
`Here, after viewing the evidence in a manner most favorable to DecisionQuest
`
`as the nonmoving party, it is possible that reasonable minds might differ as to
`
`probative similarity or substantial similarity. Thus, CSI’s motion for partial summary
`
`judgment is denied.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, CSI’s motion for partial summary judgment on
`
`the defendants’ liability for copyright infringement is DENIED.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`January 19, 2018.
`
`___________________________________
`A. JOE FISH
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`- 7 -
`
`