GG Insurance Services Incorporated v. Johnson et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
GG Insurance Services Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Myles Johnson, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-01964-PHX-KML
ORDER
Certain defendants seek reconsideration of the summary judgment order. (Doc.
276.) The motion essentially asks the court “to rethink what the court has already thought
through—rightly or wrongly.” Ramirez v. Medtronic Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 977, 1005 (D.
Ariz. 2013) (simplified). Reconsideration is not appropriate.
According to defendants, the court committed clear error in addressing plaintiff GG
Insurance Services Inc.’s (“GG’s”) claims under the Copyright Act. (Doc. 276 at 2.)
According to defendants, “GG’s copyright claims rest on the contention that Turbo’s
software performed similar functions to Quote Monkey. But functionality—the process
and methods by which software operates—is categorically excluded from copyright
protection.” (Doc. 276 at 2.) The court’s order explicitly discussed the issue defendants
now claim was overlooked. The court noted it could only consider “elements that are
protectable by copyright” and “ideas, process, and elements common to similar products
are not copyrightable.” (Doc. 272 at 8.) Summary judgment was not proper, however,
because there were protectable similarities between the products other than functions, and
Case 2:23-cv-01964-KML Document 277 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
because an original combination of unprotected elements may be protectable. (Doc. 272 at
8-9.)
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
to QM’ . . . does not appear to be supported by record evidence adduced at summary
judgment.” (Doc. 276 at 6.) Although the order inadvertently cited to the second amended
complaint, the evidence the court intended to cite supports its conclusion that the products
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
“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
Turbo Software Product and Garzella Group.” (Doc. 237-4 at 88.) Similarly, a declaration
from Dan Garzella states he is “not aware of any company in our industry that knows or
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
closer to QM’s than any other competitor is a fair inference drawn from the evidence
presented at summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 276) is DENIED.
Dated this 22nd day of April, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-01964-KML Document 277 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 2