United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
SECTION
“H”
ORDER AND REASONS
JANE
TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 110) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Doc. 112). For the following reasons, the
Defendant's Motion is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion
is GRANTED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Southern Credentialing Support Services, LLC
(“SCSS”), alleges that Defendants, Hammond
Surgical Hospital, LLC d/b/a Cypress Pointe Surgical Hospital
(“CPSH”), Hammond Surgical Hospital Management
Co. LLC, and Christopher Beary, infringed on their copyright
through the unauthorized use, reproduction, and distribution
of Plaintiff's healthcare credentialing forms. On January
15, 2010, CPSH hired Plaintiff to provide healthcare
credentialing services. Plaintiff alleges that after this
relationship was terminated on April 10, 2013, CPSH continued
to use its healthcare credentialing forms. The forms at issue
consist of two packets-the Louisiana Hospital Credentialing
Process Packet and the Louisiana Hospital Re-Credentialing
Process Packet. Each packet consists of forms, applications,
delineations, and other documents designed to streamline the
healthcare credentialing process.
Defendant
CPSH moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim that
Defendants have infringed on its copyright, alleging that
Plaintiff is not entitled to copyright protection because (1)
it does not own a valid copyright, (2) it did not create the
work, (3) it has waived its claims, and (4) it was not
damaged. Plaintiff has likewise moved for summary judgment in
its favor, arguing that it has established a valid claim for
copyright infringement to which Defendant has no defense.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.”[1] A genuine issue
of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.”[2]
In
determining whether the movant is entitled to summary
judgment, the Court views facts in the light most favorable
to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in his
favor.[3] “If the moving party meets the
initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to
produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the
existence of a genuine issue for trial.”[4] Summary judgment
is appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case.”[5] “In
response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment,
the non-movant must identify specific evidence in the record
and articulate the manner in which that evidence supports
that party's claim, and such evidence must be sufficient
to sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues
as to which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at
trial.”[6] “We do not . . . in the absence of
any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would
prove the necessary facts.”[7] Additionally, “[t]he
mere argued existence of a factual dispute will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion.”[8]
LAW
AND ANALYSIS
A.
Copyright Infringement
In
order to show copyright infringement, Plaintiff must show
that (1) it owns a valid copyright and (2) Defendant copied
constituent elements of Plaintiff's work that are
original.[9] This Court will consider each element in
turn.
1.
Valid Copyright
At the
outset, the parties dispute the validity of Plaintiff's
copyright. Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff obtained
copyright registration of the packets, such creates
“only a rebuttable presumption that the copyrights are
valid.”[10] To qualify for copyright protection,
ownership of a valid copyright must be established “by
proving the originality and copyrightability of the material
and compliance with the statutory
formalities.”[11] “The level of creativity required
to make a work of authorship original is extremely low; even
a slight amount will suffice.”[12]
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff's health credentialing packets
cannot meet the requisite level of creativity required for
copyright protection because they are factual and do not
contain any creative components. Specifically, Defendant
alleges the contents of the forms at issue are required by
regulation and CPSH's policies and procedures. It also
argues that many of the forms were borrowed from a nearby
hospital.
Defendant
is correct that facts are not copyrightable. “Facts
themselves are not copyrightable because they are discovered
rather than authored, so ‘[n]o one may claim
originality as to facts.'”[13] Plaintiff contends,
however, that its credentialing packets constitute factual
compilations. “Factual compliations . . . ‘may
possess the requisite originality' because a
‘compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the
collected data so that they may be used effectively by
readers.'”[14] “A work represents a copyrightable
compilation if it involves the collection and assembly of
existing facts, the selection and arrangement of those
materials, and the creation, by virtue of selection, of an
‘original' work.”[15]There are three
requirements for a compilation to qualify for copyright
protection: “(1) the collection and assembly of
preexisting material, facts, or data; (2) the selection,
coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and (3) the
creation, by virtue of the particular selection,
coordination, or arrangement, of an original work of
authorship.”[16] This Court holds that Plaintiff's
credentialing packets meet this test.
Although
Plaintiff's credentialing packets contain facts derived
from regulations and CPSH policy, Plaintiff has compiled them
into an efficient and streamlined credentialing process that
even Defendant admitted was “very
efficient.”[17]
The compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the
collected data so that they may be used effectively by
readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so
long as they are made independently by the compiler and
entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently
original that Congress may protect such compilations through
the copyright laws.[18]
Debra
Caminita, Plaintiff's representative, testified as to her
thought process in developing the packets and each form
within. She testified that her credentialing packets and
forms were designed to be streamlined and “get to the
point” and that they vary from competing packets by
eliminating unnecessary questions and information. Such
decisions regarding selection and arrangement clearly
necessitate at least some level of creativity.[19]
In
addition, Defendant's complaint regarding Plaintiff's
use of delineation forms from another hospital is unfounded.
Even assuming that Plaintiff did borrow the delineation forms
from another hospital, Plaintiff shows how most of her
delineation forms differ from those Defendant contends she
borrowed. These differences establish the requisite minimal
amount of creativity required for copyright protection. In
addition, “[t]he mere fact that component parts of a
collective work are neither original to the plaintiff nor
copyrightable by the plaintiff does not preclude a
determination that the combination of such component parts as
a separate entity is both original and
copyrightable.”[20]
Accordingly,
this Court finds that Plaintiff has a valid copyright in the
healthcare credentialing packets as factual compilations. The
Court notes, however, that such a copyright is considered a
“thin” copyright with limited
protection.[21] “Notwithstanding a valid
copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the
facts contained in another's publication to aid in
preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work
does not feature the same selection and
arrangement.”[22] The “copyright protects only the
elements that owe their origin to the compiler-the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of facts.”[23]
2.
Copying
To show
the second element of a copyright infringement claim,
copying, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) factual copying
and (2) substantial similarity.”[24]The first
prong is easily satisfied in this case as Defendant does not
deny using portions of Plaintiff's packets. The second
prong, however, presents a more difficult question-one which
has been glossed over by both parties.
Although
this Court has found that Plaintiff holds a valid copyright
in the packets as factual compilations, Plaintiff has not
alleged that Defendants used its entire compilation. Rather,
it alleges that they used about seven of its base forms-the
Bylaws Attestation, Medical Record Signature Form, Call
Coverage Verification, Federal DEA and LA State Controlled
Dangerous Substance Form, Practitioners Receiving
Medicare/Champus Payments Notice, Health Statement
Verification, Continuing Education Verification, and
Tuberculosis Skin Testing and Influenza Verification-and the
33 provider-specific delineations. These forms make up only a
portion of the packets at issue. Plaintiff contends that the
substantial similarity prong is easily satisfied because
Defendants do not dispute that they continued to use the
aforementioned documents after their relationship with
...