Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Peter D. Baird (001978) [email protected] Robert H. McKirgan (011636) [email protected] Richard A. Halloran (013858) [email protected] Kimberly A. Demarchi (020428) [email protected] Lewis and Roca LLP 40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Facsimile (602) 734-3746 Telephone (602) 262-5311 Attorneys for POST Integrations, Inc., et al. Nicholas J. Wallwork [email protected] Bridget S. Bade [email protected] Fredric D. Bellamy [email protected] Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Lexcel, Inc. , et al.

William McKinnon [email protected] 800 East Ocean Boulevard, Unit 501 Long Beach, California 90802-5449 and Nicholas J. DiCarlo [email protected] DiCarlo Caserta & Phelps PLLC 6750 East Camelback Road, Suite 100-A Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Attorneys for Plaintiff MTSI and Third Party Defendant Gene Clothier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) Nelcela, Inc., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) And Related Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, ) and Third-Party Claims. ) No. CIV 02-1954-PHX-MHM LEXCEL'S, POST'S, AND MTSI'S STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE OWNERSHIP OF SOFTWARE

The Lexcel, POST, and MTSI Parties (the "Responding Parties") hereby submit

22 their response to the Nelcela Parties' Objections to the Joint Parties Statement of Facts 23 and Controverting Statement of Facts (Dckt. # 350) and their statement of additional facts 24 for their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment on ownership. To the 25 extent that the Lexcel, POST, and MTSI Parties have not controverted any specific 26 statement in the Nelcela pleading, they reserve the right to contest those statements in 27 future proceedings. 28
Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 14
1729029.1

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

I.

RESPONSE TO NELCELA'S RESPONSES/OBJECTIONS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-13. Nelcela does not object to these statements of fact, and

no further response is necessary. 3. For the purpose of this motion, the Responding Parties do not contest that

Alec Dollarhide's access to Lexcel's computers ended in 1995. 4. The Responding Parties do not contest that Mr. Pell's report and the P.G.

Lewis report contain the cited passages finding differences between the 1994/95 version of the Lexcel code produced by Mr. Dollarhide and the 2001 version produced by Lexcel. They note that Mr. Pell identified the changes as updates to the 1994/95 version, not as wholly unrelated or different code. (Report of Jeffrey Pell, Nelcela's Omnibus Statement of Facts ("Nelcela SOF 1"), Dckt. # 331, Ex. 49 (sealed pursuant to Dckt. # 346).) The Responding Parties do not concede that these findings have the significance that Nelcela attributes to them. 8. For the purposes of this motion, the Responding Parties concede that the

document produced by Lexcel was not previously produced by MTSI. The Responding Parties do not concede, as Nelcela implies, that there was any wrongdoing on the part of either MTSI or Lexcel. 11. In response to paragraph 11, the Responding Parties note that their

previously submitted statement of facts accurately described the timing of Nelcela's copyright applications for its Authorization System and Merchant System. (Consolidated Statement of Facts in Support of the Lexcel, MTSI, and POST Parties' Consolidated Response to Nelcela's Motions for Summary Judgment ("SOF 2"), Dckt. # 352, at ¶ 2326.) That statement of facts did not attempt to make assertions about the timing of Nelcela's application for a copyright on its Terminal Driver. (Id.) The Responding Parties do not dispute that the Terminal Driver copyright application was filed in 1998. 14. The Responding Parties dispute Nelcela's characterization of the agreement

between POST and Nelcela and the payments made on that agreement. As set forth in 2

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 359

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 2 of 14

1729029.1

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

their Response to Nelcela's Omnibus Statement of Facts, Nelcela mischaracterizes the agreement and POST's compliance with it. (SOF 2 at ¶ 46-48.) 15, 17. The Responding Parties dispute that Ms. Gerdts' declaration contradicts her deposition testimony. In her declaration, Ms. Gerdts stated that POST hired programmers to write software for its use and began using that software in June 2001. (Statement of Facts in Support of the Lexcel, MTSI, and POST Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment ("SOF 1"), Dckt. # 334, at ex. 10 ¶¶ 7-8.) Ms. Gerdts testified to those same facts during her deposition. (Deposition of Mary Gerdts, attached as Ex. 1, at p. 256 ll. 3-6 & 12-17.) The fact that Ms. Gerdts, who is not herself a programmer, refused to testify to the precise actions taken by the programmers she hired, deferring instead to them to testify more precisely on the technical details, does not mean that she is not capable of testifying to her company's actions in hiring programmers or the date on which the company converted to the new software. Moreover, her deposition is consistent with the testimony of the programmer who she hired to write the software, Ramana Malladi. (SOF 2 at ¶¶ 57-59.) 16. POST disputes the claim that it has offered "many different versions" of

how it came to use the software it began using in 2001. As addressed in detail in the Responding Parties' prior filings, POST licensed code from MTSI, the MTSI code was almost completely unusable, and POST therefore wrote its own code from scratch. It did not have access to, and did not use, any of Nelcela's copyrighted code to create its software. Ramana Malladi has never testified to the contrary. He has simply confirmed, as Alec Dollarhide himself agreed, that Nelcela gave him a small segment of nonworking computer code from which Mr. Malladi created a computer program to prepare merchant billing statements. POST paid for this merchant billing statement project and was to own all rights in the project. (SOF 1 ¶¶ 15-17; SOF 2 ¶¶ 57-59, 59-62.) Moreover, this computer code was not a part of the copyrighted Nelcela Software. 18. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Nelcela's copyright applications

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

were filed before Lexcel's were, but disputes that this chronology either supports the 3
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 3 of 14
1729029.1

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

validity of Nelcela's copyrights or negatively affects Lexcel's ownership interests. 19. The Responding Parties do not dispute that the cited passages appear in Dr.

Posner's deposition testimony. 20. The Responding Parties do not dispute that the PG Lewis report offers the

two listed explanations for the evidence of copying between the Lexcel and Nelcela codes. However, the Responding Parties note that the "logical explanation" proffered by PG Lewis ­ that "Alec Dollarhide authored the code" ­ is no defense. Pursuant to a confidentiality agreement he signed, Alec Dollarhide was not permitted to use the Lexcel code for his own purposes or replicate in the Nelcela code work he did on the Lexcel code during the period he worked on it. (SOF 1 ¶ 3 and Ex. 4.) 21. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Mr. Lerche lacks personal

knowledge of the times at which the MTSI and Nelcela software were created. The Responding Parties note that that information is available in the record and that Mr. Dollarhide's own testimony establishes that the MTSI code was created first. (SOF 1 ¶¶ 1-2 (Mr. Dollarhide began working for CCSL on the Lexcel software in 1994); Id. ¶¶ 7-8 (Mr. Dollarhide continued to work for CCSL's successors, CCSI and MTSI); SOF 2 ¶¶ 23-26 (Mr. Dollarhide has testified that he began creating the Nelcela software in his spare time in 1996).) The responding parties further note that the statement of counsel Mr. Lerche relied upon in drawing his conclusion ­ that Steve Pile worked for Nelcela and not for MTSI ­ is true. (Deposition of Steven Pile, attached as Ex. 2, at p. 25 ll. 7-15, p. 26 ll. 11-13.) 22, 26.The Responding Parties do not dispute that the cited language appears in Mr. Zeidman's deposition testimony but note that the citation is misleading. After that testimony, Mr. Zeidman re-examined the code at issue and issued a supplemental report. After his deposition, but prior to the deadline for the submission of his deposition corrections, Mr. Zeidman reviewed the notes, re-did the comparisons they appeared to describe, and issued an addendum to his report, explaining the actual results of his analysis ­ that comparison of the Lexcel and Nelcela code revealed clear evidence of 4
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 4 of 14
1729029.1

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

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

copying by Nelcela. (SOF 1 at Ex. 16 (submitted under seal to this Court, see Dckt. # 337).) Mr. Zeidman then made appropriate deposition corrections and signed his deposition within the required period of time. (October 21, 2005 letter from Driver and Nix to Richard A. Halloran with deadline for deposition corrections, attached as Ex. 3; Mr. Zeidman's deposition corrections, attached as Ex. 4.) Mr. Zeidman's complete analysis reveals that that comparing either the 1994/95 version or the 2001 version of the Lexcel code reveals significant evidence of copying of the Lexcel Software by Nelcela. (SOF 1 at Ex. 16 (submitted under seal), at 2-3.) 23. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Mr. DeCicco attempted the

deposition correction, but dispute that it was a proper correction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b), as explained in more detail in their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The Responding Parties note that the question Mr. DeCicco claims to have "misunderstood" is a very simple one ­ did he agree with Mr. Lerche's finding "that Nelcela copied the MTSI code"? (Deposition Testimony of Robert DeCicco, attached as Ex. 5, at p. 118 l. 23 ­ p. 119 l.9.) The Responding Parties also note that Mr. DeCicco's expert report did not dispute Mr. Lerche's conclusion that Nelcela copied the MTSI code and instead indicated that Mr. Lerche's conclusion was consistent with the information Nelcela's counsel had told Mr. DeCicco. (Expert Report of PG Lewis, SOF 1 Ex. 17, submitted under seal (see Dckt. # 337), at 16 ("PGLA has been informed by counsel at Ronan & Firestone that Mr. Dollarhide, the author of this source code, had a contract with MTSI while he worked there giving him ownership of the code in question. Therefore when Mr. Dollarhide left MTSI and began working at Nelcela, he brought along the code that he owned and it is expected that the Nelcela code would be derived from the MTSI code. . . .").) 24-25. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Dr. Posner testified that he did not examine creation dates of files in order to date the software, that he reviewed the computer source code produced in this lawsuit by Lexcel software rather than the 1994/95 disks in Mr. Dollarhide's possession, and that he could opine about copying but 5
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 5 of 14
1729029.1

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

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

lacked personal knowledge of which code was copied from the other. The Responding Parties refer the Court to the portion of their reply explaining why Dr. Posner's finding of copying combined with the undisputed facts about the times at which the software was created establish conclusively that Nelcela copied Lexcel, not the other way around. 27-28. The Nelcela parties do not dispute the existence of shared code, but point to their expert's report to provide "explanations" of why shared code might occur. Their expert's report provides only one explanation ­ counsel's assertion, quoted above, that Mr. Dollarhide took the MTSI software with him when he went to Nelcela and that similarities between MTSI and Nelcela software would therefore be expected. (Expert Report of PG Lewis, SOF 1 Ex. 17, submitted under seal (see Dckt. # 337), at 16.) That "explanation" is inconsistent with Mr. Dollarhide's sworn testimony that he did not use the MTSI code when writing the Nelcela software. (Deposition of Alec Dollarhide, Vol. I, attached as Ex. 6, at p. 201 ll. 19-24; Deposition of Alec Dollarhide, Vol. II, attached as Ex. 7, at p. 288 ll. 10-17, p. 296 ll. 7-21.) The expert report does not provide any other explanations for similarities in the code. 29-30. The Responding Parties do not dispute that, during his deposition, Mr. DeCicco was handed a copy of the source code Nelcela submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office and asked to identify any portion of that computer code that he believes was copied in any way by POST. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Mr. DeCicco complained that he couldn't "tell by looking at this piece of paper," i.e., the actual computer source code in which Nelcela claims to own a registered copyright, but note that Mr. DeCicco never pointed to any portion of his report or produced working papers where he had conducted this essential analysis and which would answer the question raised. (Deposition of Robert DeCicco, attached as Ex. 5, at p. 55 l. 1 ­ p. 60 l. 4.) The Responding Parties do not dispute that Mr. DeCicco attempted to modify his testimony through his deposition corrections, but note that his citation supporting his correction that "there are matching lines of code" did not identify any specific lines but merely cited to all of the pages of the very same computer source code he was asked to 6
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 6 of 14
1729029.1

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

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

look at during his deposition. (Compare Deposition Corrections of Robert DeCicco, attached as Ex. 8; with Deposition Exhibit 307, attached as Ex. 9.) As set forth in their reply, the Responding Parties dispute the admissibility of this purported deposition correction as outside the scope of the corrections permitted by Rule 30(b). The Responding Parties also object to the inclusion of Exhibit G, Mr. DeCicco's additional analysis, as an exhibit to the statement of facts. Exhibit G has never been disclosed in this litigation. All of the deadlines for expert disclosure and discovery have passed. (Dckt. # 209 (setting expert report deadline of Sept. 16, 2005 and close of discovery on Oct. 14, 2005).) Mr. DeCicco's deadline to submit deposition corrections was November 17, 2005, and he did not submit this additional analysis with his correction or before it was due. (Oct. 17, 2005 letter from Coash & Coash to Merrick Firestone with deadline for deposition corrections, attached as Ex. 10.) In addition, the Responding Parties note that the file in which Mr. DeCicco alleges there is shared code, bnkmerch.pbl, is not a part of the POST Software. POST has never claimed ownership of the file, nor is the file a part of the functioning POST code. Rather, Bnkmerch.pbl is part of the code that POST licensed from MTSI. Even though POST licensed the MTSI code, including Bnkmerch.pbl, it did not use that code in its own software because the MTSI code was not functional. The only reason that the MTSI code appears in the code produced in this litigation is that the code licensed from MTSI was stored on POST's computers along with POST's own code, and the copies of POST code produced in this litigation were made from backup copies of the files on those computers. The Bnkmerch.pbl file was not used at all in the POST Software or in the writing of any portion of the POST Software. (Declaration of Ramana Malladi, attached as Ex. 11.) II. RESPONSE TO CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. 2. See the Responding Parties' responses to paragraphs 6, 19-30, supra. The Responding Parties do not dispute that the experts limited their

analysis to whether there was evidence of copying or similarity between the source codes at issue, and that they did not opine on the ultimate, legal issue of ownership. The 7
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 7 of 14
1729029.1

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

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

Responding Parties note that opinion testimony on ownership would be inappropriate, since that is the ultimate issue in the case and expert opinion testimony is not permitted on such issues. See, e.g., Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1066 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) ("an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law"). 3, 9. The Responding Parties also do not dispute that the experts limited their

analysis to evidence of copying or similarity and did not attempt to speculate, on the basis of facts of which they lacked personal knowledge, about which party had the opportunity or the timing to copy from which other party. It is undisputed that the Lexcel code was created first and that Alec Dollarhide had access to the Lexcel code when he wrote the Nelcela software. (See, e.g., SOF 1 ¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 6; SOF 2 ¶¶ 23-26; ¶ I:22, supra; ¶¶ II:7, 13, infra). When provided with this factual background, the parties' experts had no difficulty in opining that the Nelcela code was copied from the Lexcel code. POST's expert, Robert Zeidman, opined, based on his analysis of the Lexcel and Nelcela software, that: [T]he source code from one program was plagiarized from the source code of the other program, though I have not been able to determine which source code files were the original ones. I have been informed by counsel that the Lexcel files were created first. Given that information it is apparent that the Nelcela files were copied from the Lexcel files. (Addendum to the Expert Report of Robert Zeidman, SOF 1 Ex. 16, at 3.) Lexcel's expert reached the same conclusion, based on his assumption that the Lexcel Software predates the Nelcela Software: Q. It's your opinion, sir, that Nelcela engaged in widespread copying of the Lexcel software. Isn't that true? A. That's correct. Q. They did it in their authorization system. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And they did it in their merchant system. Is that correct? A. That's correct. (Deposition of David Posner, attached as Ex. 12, at p. 51 l. 22 ­ p. 52 l. 6.) 4. The Responding Parties do not dispute that two versions of the Lexcel

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Software have been produced in this litigation and reviewed by the various experts: a 8
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 8 of 14
1729029.1

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

1994/95 version produced by Mr. Dollarhide from disks he received in 1995 during the Lexcel-CCSL settlement and an updated, 2001 version of the source code produced by Lexcel. (Nelcela's Thirteenth Supplemental Disclosure Statement, attached as Ex. 13; SOF 1 ¶ 6.) However, much of the computer code that Lexcel's expert, David Posner, relied upon in the 2001 code also appears verbatim in the 1995 version of the Lexcel software. (Compare, e.g., Expert Report of David Posner, SOF 1 Ex. 12, at 17-18; with Interchange.H (from the Lexcel 1995 disks), attached as Ex. 14 (filed under seal pursuant to the First Amended Protective Order, Dckt. # 175).) POST's expert compared the Nelcela Software against the both the 1995 and 2001 versions Lexcel software, and concluded that Nelcela copied the Lexcel Software. Evidence of copying was found both by comparing the Nelcela code to the 1995 Lexcel code and by comparing the Nelcela code to the 2001 Lexcel code. (Addendum to the Expert Report of Robert Zeidman, SOF 1 Ex. 16.) The experts' analyses show that many lines of computer code from the 1995 Lexcel Software were copied letter-for-letter by Nelcela. For example, as set forth in Dr. Posner's report, the following lines of computer code were copied by Nelcela from the Lexcel source code provided to Dollarhide in 1995 for delivery to CCSL, including the programmer comments offset by slashes:
/* * VISANET INTERFACE CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS */ typedef struct { char Name[20 + 1]; int InterchangeNo; int Priority; DBDATETIME StartTimeStamp; DBDATETIME EndTimeStamp; char TimeUnit[2 + 1]; int TimeFrame; int MessageCount; char char char comm_port[30 + 1]; trace_option[1 + 1]; trace_file[30 + 1]; /* Comm Port Name Input */ /* Print and Log Trace Msgs */ /* Logging File */

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 359

9

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 9 of 14

1729029.1

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
1

int int int int int int int int int int char

char char char char char char char char int

network_timeout; /* Network Timeout/seconds */ nmm_timeout; /* Network Mgmt/seconds */ output_threshhold; /* # requests sent before */ /* reading from comm */ max_reverse_retries; /* # times to retry */ /* reversal when no resp */ requests_active; /* # outstanding requests */ requests_processed; /* # rqst/resp pairs processed */ approvals; /* # of approvals */ denials; /* # of denials */ time_outs; /* # of timeouts */ late_resps; /* # of late responses */ current_status[1 + 1]; /* L = Logged On */ /* O = Logged Off */ /* D = Communications Down */ auth_status_process_num[1 + 1]; /* */ auth_status_online[1 + 1]; /* Online = "Y" */ auth_status_connected[1 + 1]; /* Start Comm = "Y" */ auth_status_logged_on[1 + 1]; /* Log On = "Y" */ auth_status_flag[2 + 1]; /* Return Stats = "Y" */ comm_key[16 + 1]; pin_format[1 + 1]; pin_pad_char[1 + 1]; refreshInterval; /* /* /* */ */ */

/* Visa specific */ char card_acceptor_id_code[15 + 1];

/* Card Acceptor Id Code */

(Expert Report of David Posner, SOF 1 Ex. 12, at 17-18; see also Interchange.H, attached as Ex. 14 and filed under seal; Deposition Exhibit 307 (Nelcela's copyright registration), attached as Ex. 9, at USCO 87-88.))1 This is but one of the many examples of copying by Nelcela of the Lexcel Software that are detailed in Dr. Posner's and Robert Zeidman's expert reports. (Expert Report of David Posner, SOF 1 Ex. 12; Addendum to the Expert Report of Robert Zeidman, SOF 1 Ex. 16.) 5. The Responding Parties dispute the Nelcela Parties' characterization of

their own expert's analysis. As demonstrated in the quote that immediately follows the assertion, Mr. Pell did not conclude that the 1994/95 version of the Lexcel software "bore no resemblance" to the 2001 version. He found that the 2001 version was an updated, As set forth in the Reply, which also quotes this code, Nelcela has submitted these lines of code to the Copyright Office and thereby made them matters of public record. For that reason, they are not subject to the First Amended Protective Order and need not be filed under seal. (Dckt. # 175.) By citing these lines of code, which were made public by Nelcela without Lexcel's consent, Lexcel does not waive its rights under the First Amended Protective Order to the confidentiality of code produced in this litigation. 10
Document 359 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 10 of 14
1729029.1

26 27 28

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

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

improved version of the same software. (Expert Report of Jeffrey Pell, Nelcela SOF 1 Ex. 49, at 5 (sealed pursuant to Dckt. # 346).) 6. The Responding Parties do not dispute that Mr. Lerche and Dr. Posner

reviewed the 2001 version of the Lexcel code rather than the 1994/95 version. The Responding Parties note that Mr. Zeidman did review both versions and found extensive evidence that Nelcela copied from the Lexcel code. (Addendum to the Expert Report of Robert Zeidman, SOF 1 Ex. 16.) 7. For the purposes of this motion, the Responding Parties do not dispute that

Mr. Dollarhide did not have access to the 2001 version of the Lexcel source code. The Responding Parties note that he did have access to and possession of a 1995 version of the Lexcel Software that he received on floppy disks from Lexcel. (See Nelcela's Thirteenth Supplemental Disclosure Statement, attached as Ex. 13; Deposition of Leonard Campagna, attached as Ex. 15, at pp. 60-64; SOF 1 ¶ 6.) 8. See response to paragraphs 22, 26, supra.

10-11. See response to paragraph 21, supra. 12. 13. See response to paragraphs 24-25, supra. The Responding Parties do not dispute that the Nelcela parties claim to

have written and copyrighted the Nelcela software prior to 2001, when Lexcel registered its copyrights. The Responding Parties note that the Nelcela parties' assertion that the Nelcela software was created in 1998-99 is inconsistent with their prior statements of fact and with the sworn testimony of Mr. Campagna and the three Dollarhide brothers. (See SOF 2 ¶¶ 23-26.) The Responding Parties further note that it is undisputed that the Lexcel software was being created at least as early as 1994, when Lexcel and CCSL entered into an agreement under which Lexcel would create software for CCSL to license and use, and that Mr. Dollarhide obtained a copy of the Lexcel source code in 1995 ­ long before he claims to have begun writing the Nelcela software. (SOF 1 ¶¶ 1 and Ex. 1 (Lexcel-CCS agreement); id. at 6 (Mr. Dollarhide received the Lexcel source code on disk in 1995).)
Document 359

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

11

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 11 of 14

1729029.1

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

14.

The Responding Parties do not dispute that they entered into a settlement

agreement in January 2006. The Responding Parties do not contest that, in 2001, Mary Gerdts, POST's CEO, suggested some kind of cooperation between the parties, all of whom she believed to be victims of Mr. Dollarhide's tortious conduct. The Responding Parties dispute any implication that their cooperation is impermissible or suspect. 15-16. The Responding Parties do not dispute that counsel for the Nelcela Parties urged MTSI to drop its claims once it settled with Lexcel and POST. As set forth in the Responding Parties' reply and their joint response to Nelcela's motions for summary judgment, they dispute that MTSI was required to drop those claims and note that MTSI has not abandoned its argument that, if Lexcel is found to not own the software at issue, then MTSI would have a valid claim to ownership based on the facts that (a) Mr. Dollarhide created the software for MTSI and its predecessors as a work for hire by an employee, and (b) Mr. Dollarhided represented to MTSI that MTSI owned the software and that he (Alec Dollarhide) did not. (SOF 2 ¶¶ 28-29, 31; see also POST, Lexcel, and MTSI Parties' Consolidated Response in Opposition to Nelcela's Motions for Summary Judgment, Dckt. # 351, at 23-24.) 17-19. See response to paragraphs 29-30, supra. DATED this 24th day of April, 2006. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP By __s/ Nicholas J. Wallwork__________ Nicholas J. Wallwork Fredric D. Bellamy Bridget S. Bade Attorneys for Lexcel, Inc. and Lexcel Solutions, Inc. LEWIS AND ROCA LLP By __s/ Kimberly A. Demarchi________ Peter D. Baird Robert H. McKirgan Richard A. Halloran Kimberly A. Demarchi Attorneys for POST Integrations, Inc., Ebocom, Inc., Mary L. Gerdts, and Douglas McKinney

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 359

12

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 12 of 14

1729029.1

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

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM McKINNON By: William McKinnon and DICARLO CASERTA & PHELPS PLLC

s/Nicholas J. DiCarlo Nicholas J. DiCarlo Attorneys for Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., Gene Clothier, and Tone Clothier

By:

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 359

13

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 13 of 14

1729029.1

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
Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM Document 359

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 24, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Merrick B. Firestone [email protected] Veronica L. Manolio [email protected] Ronan & Firestone, PLC 9300 East Raintree Drive, Suite 120 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Attorneys for Defendants Nelcela Incorporated, Alec Dollarhide, and Len Campagna

s/

Debi Garrett

14

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 14 of 14

1729029.1