Democracy Is on the Ballot: One Party Defends It, The Other Would Let It Die

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the 2020 Democratic National Convention was unlike any other political gathering in American history for reasons beyond its virtual platform. Sarat argues that the future of American democracy lies in the balance, and when we vote in November, it will be up to us whether democracy lives or dies.

Read More

ECIMOS, LLC v. Carrier Corp.

Dockets: 19-5436, 19-5519

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Danny Julian Boggs

Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts, Copyright, Intellectual Property

Carrier manufactures residential Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems. ECIMOS produced the quality-control system that tested completed HVAC units at the end of Carrier’s assembly line. ECIMOS alleged that Carrier infringed on its copyright on its database-script source code—a part of ECIMOS’s software that stores test results. ECIMOS alleges that Carrier improperly used the database and copied certain aspects of the code to aid a third-party’s development of new testing software that Carrier now employs in its Collierville, Tennessee manufacturing facility. ECIMOS won a $7.5 million jury award. The court reduced Carrier’s total damages liability to $6,782,800; enjoined Carrier from using its new database, but stayed the injunction until Carrier could develop a new, non-infringing database subject to the supervision of a special master; and enjoined Carrier from disclosing ECIMOS’s trade secrets while holding that certain elements of ECIMOS’s system were not protectable as trade secrets (such as ECIMOS’s assembled hardware). The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. There are sufficient reasons to conclude that Carrier did infringe on ECIMOS’s copyright, but Carrier’s liability to ECIMOS based on its copyright infringement and its breach of contract can total no more than $5,566,050. The district court did not err when it crafted its post-trial injunctions.

Marvaso v. Adams

Dockets: 19-1882, 19-1857, 19-1870

Opinion Date: August 21, 2020

Judge: Eric L. Clay

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

On May 8, 2013, a fire broke out in the kitchen of Plaintiffs' restaurant. Firefighters put out the fire, but a firefighter, Woelke, died from smoke inhalation. State Police offered to investigate, but the Wayne-Westland Fire Marshal (Adams) and Fire Chief Reddy declined and investigated. Adams found no evidence of accelerants. Investigators representing Plaintiffs’ landlord and insurer also investigated and found the fire's cause to be “undetermined.” The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration concluded that Woelke's death resulted, at least in part, from the Fire Department’s violations of health and safety regulations. The Department admitted its violations. Meanwhile, according to Plaintiffs, Adams, Reddy and Reddy’s father, retired Fire Chief Reddy Sr., planned to divert attention away from the Department; they agreed to change the cause of the fire to “incendiary” to trigger an arson and homicide investigation. Despite their ensuing activities, no charges were ever brought. Plaintiffs sued the three under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging civil conspiracy, and sued Lieutenant Sanchez, alleging that he falsified his application for a warrant and illegally searched Plaintiffs' homes without probable cause. The court denied their motions to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit dismissed Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A party who is not a public official may be liable under section 1983 but not entitled to qualified immunity because the reason for affording qualified immunity does not exist. The court affirmed as to the others. Sanchez’s motion to dismiss did not challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs adequately alleged that Adams and Reddy Jr. engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fabricate evidence and thereby caused Plaintiffs’ constitutional injury.