United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Imersion Global Incorporated
(“Imersion”). Doc. 40. Plaintiff Oklahoma Digital
Abstract, LLC (“ODA”) opposes the motion. Doc.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). The movant bears the burden of showing that no genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Zamora v. Elite
Logistics, Inc., 449 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2006).
The Court resolves all factual disputes and draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Id. However, the party opposing a motion for summary
judgment may not “rest on mere allegations” in
its complaint but must “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The party opposing a motion for summary
judgment must also make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of those elements essential to that party's
case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
movant that “will not bear the burden of persuasion at
trial need not negate the nonmovant' claim, “but
may “simply . . . point out to the court a lack of
evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the
nonmovant's claim.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal
citations omitted). If the movant makes this prima facie
showing, “the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go
beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts'
that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial
from which a rational trier of fact could find for the
nonmovant.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Wichita
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013 (1992)). “In a
response to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot
rest on ignorance of facts, on speculation, or on suspicion
and may not escape summary judgment in the mere hope that
something will turn up at trial. The mere possibility that a
factual dispute may exit, without more, is not sufficient to
overcome convincing presentation by the moving party.”
Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988)
(internal citations omitted).
was founded in 2010 by Anil K. Adoni (“Adoni”) to
provide services in the title industry. Doc. 40, Ex. 1, Adoni
Dep. at 15:5-6, 16:5-8. A title plant is a depository of all
of the land documents of a particular county indexed by the
fields set out by the client to search them and find them.
Id. at 24:7-11. As part of the indexing process,
Imersion utilizes a team of employees located in India to
review document records and create an electronic index of the
applicable fields. Id. at 21:5-11; 30:17-24.
Imersion has previously indexed documents for more than 60
title plants in Texas and New Mexico, and has assisted in
indexing documents for title plants in Arkansas, Michigan and
Belize. Id. at 21:5-11; 30:17-24.
about March 25, 2014, ODA and Imersion entered into contracts
for the indexing of abstract plants in Wagoner County and
Rogers County, Oklahoma. Id., Ex. 2, Junker Dep. at
39:17-41:2 and Exs. 2 and 3 thereto. At Imersion's
suggestion, ODA entered into a separate contract with
CourthouseDirect.com, Inc. (“CourthouseDirect”)
for use of that company's software platform to house the
indexes Imersion created. Id., Ex. 2, Junker Dep. at
86:12-14; Ex. 1, Adoni Dep. at 50:25-51:7.
Imersion contracts described the “scope of the
project” as follows:
1. Scanning all the documents that are not already scanned by
the County in the County and District Clerk's office.
2. Acquire all the data that is already scanned in both the
3. Convert all images if required and then staple all the
images as per the document number of the scanned and the
acquired (scanned) images from the County
4. Index all the documents as per the indexing rules for the
5. Index all the gaps that the County missed indexing (if
6. Give an estimate for day forward indexing to keep them
current to one week
7. Give hosting solutions.
Doc. 73, Exs. 2, 3. The total cost for imaging Wagoner County
documents was estimated to be $285, 506.67. Id., Ex.
2. The total cost for imaging Rogers County documents was
estimated to be $343, ...