Summary of digEcor Doc 326:

1. digEcor moved for summary judgment on its claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing alleging that EDIG violated this claim implicit in the purchase order by marketing the eVU while digEcor’s order of digEplayer 5500’s was delayed [a fault of Maycom]. The Court ruled that as a matter of law e.Digital had no implied duty to refrain from competing with digEcor while the digEplayer 5500’s were not yet delivered. The Court DENIED digEcor’s summary judgment request.

2. Of three claims by digEcor (Lanham Act, Utah Common Law Unfair Competition, and Utah Statutory Unfair Competition), the Court ruled the first two claims were ruled inappropriate for summary judgment and DENIED EDIG’s motions. This means these two will be decided upon at trial. The Court did rule on EDIG’s motion for summary judgment on the third claim, Utah Statutory Unfair Competition. In this claim, digEcor alleged EDIG granted digEcor an exclusive license in DRM software. According to digEcor, EDIG violated that license by using the DRM software in the eVU. As a matter of law, the Court disagreed and GRANTED EDIG’s motion for summary judgment against digEcor.

3. digEcor moved for summary judgment to dismiss EDIG’s claim of defamation. An e-mail written by BOW was cited in the Court’s decision in which BOW admitted he sent a deceitful e-mail to executives at Alitalia Airlines on purpose. Ouch! The Court DENIED digEcor’s motion due to questions of disputed material fact. EDIG’s claim of defamation survived and will be decided upon at trial.

4. digEcor moved for summary judgment to dismiss EDIG’s claim of tortious interference. The Court ruled that EDIG had presented enough evidence to create an issue of fact and DENIED digEcor’s motion to dismiss. EDIG’s claim of tortuous interference survived and will be decided upon at trial.

5. digEcor’s motion to strike Will Blakeley’s declaration was DENIED by the Court.

6. digEcor’s motion to strike various submissions was DENIED by the Court. These EDIG submissions included another Blakeley declaration, declarations from Ken Bostenero and Ryan Bell and deposition testimony from Ray Henson. Also, digEcor claimed that 30 exhibits of EDIG were hearsay and should not be allowed. I laughed at this paragraph from the ruling,

Moreover, if this part of the motion were ripe for decision, the court would strike the objections because digEcor failed to explain, exhibit by exhibit, what particular statement was hearsay and why. The court will not make digEcor’s arguments for it.

---------------------

Bottom line is we definitely came out better on the summary judgment rulings than digEcor did. Now, let’s get this case to trial...the Defense is ready!