Michael L. Eckstein v. Stratus Systems, Inc. and Steven A. Becnel

MICHAEL L. ECKSTEIN * NO. 2023-CA-0554

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
STRATUS SYSTEMS, INC. *
AND STEVEN A. BECNEL FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

STRATUS SYSTEMS, INC. NO. 2023-CA-0555

VERSUS

MICHAEL L. ECKSTEIN

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2002-02069 C/W 2002-02253, DIVISION “L”
Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge
******
Judge Roland L. Belsome
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge
Rosemary Ledet)
Katherine Seegers Roth
Henry Minor Pipes, III
Patrick J. Lorio
PIPES MILES BECKMAN, L.L.C.
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
New Orleans, LA 70163
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Ashley L. Belleau
Tyler J. Arbour
Paul W. Freese
LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
601 Poydras Street
Suite 2775
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FEBRUARY 26, 2024

RLB Appellant in this case, Michael Eckstein (“Eckstein”) asks this court to
TFL
RML reverse the trial court’s ruling on his motion for contempt. The contempt issue was

decided by the trial court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment that

were heard on April 14, 2023. Eckstein’s motion for summary judgment was

denied and the contrary motion was granted.

This case has been settled for nearly two decades, yet the parties have

disputed on several occasions whether obligations undertaken as part of the

settlement have been fully performed. At issue on this particular occasion is

whether defendant, Stratus Systems, Inc. (“Stratus”), has met its obligation to

provide drawings that would allow Eckstein to manufacture a safety device whose

patent is owned by Stratus.

Stratus was formed for the purpose of designing, producing and selling a

“universal inflater” whose primary purpose is to inflate life safety devices upon

contact with water. Stratus was formed by Eckstein and an individual defendant,

Stephen Becnel (“Becnel”). Becnel had expertise in designing and building

devices and Eckstein provided capital and legal expertise. Before the project was

completed, the parties’ paths diverged with each accusing the other of

1

misappropriation of business assets, especially money. Lawsuits were filed by each

against the other.

A settlement was reached on February 6, 2002 in which Becnel kept the

company and the patent for the device.1 Becnel retained the exclusive right to sell

the inflater to military customers. Eckstein had the exclusive right and license to

sell to all non-military customers.

In order to make it possible for Eckstein to benefit from the license, Stratus

was obliged to provide Eckstein with “Level 3 Data/Print Package” drawings

detailing all information necessary to create a working inflater unit.2 Stratus’

obligation was further defined to require it to provide to Eckstein any and all

drawings and specifications that it provided to any of its machine shops and parts

manufacturers. Expert witnesses were engaged by plaintiff, defendants, and the

court. Each party asked its expert to review the drawings and to determine whether

Stratus had met its obligations as defined by the settlement agreement, the consent

judgment, and the licensing agreement.

Eckstein’s expert witness, Lawrence Guera (“Guera”), testified in

deposition3 that Stratus’ Universal Inflator cannot be made with the drawings

provided by Stratus. The record does not reflect whether any proposed

manufacturer was hampered by the drawings because Eckstein did not submit

Defendants’ drawings to any manufacturer with a charge to produce the inflater as

drawn.

1 The design and patent were completed by the time the suit was settled.
2 The parties differed on the definition of “Level 3 Data/Print Package”. The phrase is a term of
art in Department of Defense procurement jargon. Experts retained by the parties were called
upon to determine the meaning of the phrase in addition to other professional matters described
below.
3 Although the deposition was attached to the motion for summary judgment and is part of the

record, much of this record is sealed in order to protect proprietary information that was
necessarily disclosed in the course of these proceedings.

2

William Thomassie (“Thomassie”), the expert retained by defendants, 4 was

more generous in describing the utility of the drawings. He opined that an inflater

could be made using the drawings and making some educated assumptions

regarding details not provided by them. In fact, Thomassie, who manages a

sizeable engineering firm, assigned two of his associates to create the inflater using

the drawings that were provided to Eckstein. Both of the engineers in Thomassie’s

firm were successful in creating a three-dimensional printed device; however,

Thomassie did not compare the three-dimensional product to a working device

produced by Stratus. Thomassie agreed that the drawings delivered to Eckstein did

not meet the definition of a Level 3 Data/Print Package, but maintained that by

making some informed assumptions, the drawings provided were adequate to build

a working product.

The court appointed Roy Carubba (“Carubba”) as its expert. According to

the record, Carubba determined that he also required the assistance of someone

with more or different expertise and called upon Moses Engineers, Inc. (“Moses”)

to provide an opinion. Eckstein objected to the trial court’s reliance on the Moses

opinion because Moses was not the court-appointed expert. Eckstein argues that

the court appointed Carubba, not Moses. For its part, the trial court viewed the

Moses opinion as one in the same with that of Carubba because Carubba “adopted

the Moses opinion.” In any event, Moses’ opinion letter seems to stop short of

declaring that the Stratus drawings constitute a Level 3 Data/Print Package. Moses

concluded that “the drawing sets provided by Stratus Systems are in concert with

4 Guerra is a retired mechanical engineer and an inventor holding nearly 100 patents. Thomassie

is a licensed professional engineer and an owner of Infinity Engineering Consultants, LLC.
Neither expert claims any experience in dealing with military procurement standards.

3

the applicable standards and are typical to the standard documentation that would

be provided by Stratus Systems in this industry.”

Standard of review.

When a “legal question arises in the context of cross-motions for summary

judgment, the appropriate standard of review is de novo.”5 In our determination of

the merits of this appeal, we are guided by the burden of proof in La. Code Civ.

Proc. art. 966(A)(3), which provides that, “a motion for summary judgment shall

be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there

is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.”

Legal analysis.

In this instance, we are not called upon to determine the outcome of an entire

claim. The parties themselves did that by way of a consent judgment long ago.

Eckstein’s contempt motion seeks to force Stratus and Becnel to produce drawings

and data that conform to the settlement agreement. The motion, in effect, presents

three questions that include both fact and law: (1) Is Eckstein entitled to a Level 3

Data/Print Package or would something else suffice?; (2) What constitutes a Level

3 Data/Print Package?; (3) If the phrase “Level 3 Data/Print Package” is

interchangeable with “production ready”, did Stratus provide drawings from which

one could reliably make the same universal inflaters that Stratus is currently selling

for military use?

After reviewing the record and the legal arguments of counsel, we conclude

that there is no definitive answer to any of the questions above. The three experts

5 Calcasieu Par. Sch. Bd. Sales & Use Dep't v. Nelson Indus. Steam Co., 2021-00552, p.5 (La.

10/10/21), 332 So. 3d 606, 610.

4

who offered opinions found three different, and sometimes opposing, ways to

answer the questions. The consent judgment and the licensing agreement make

clear that Eckstein is entitled to a Level 3 Data/Print Package. However, there was

no agreement among the experts regarding the meaning of the military

procurement terminology. Moreover, the experts retained by the parties both

denied having substantial experience in military procurement jargon. By

definition, expert witnesses must have “specialized knowledge [that] will help the

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”6 Although

Guera and Thomassie are both qualified as experts in engineering, the record does

not reflect that either has the education, training or work experience to assist the

court in defining the phrase “Level 3 Data/Print Package,” as it is used in the

military procurement process.7 Finally, the experts had differing opinions

regarding the ability of a manufacturer to create the patented device reliably from

the drawings provided by Stratus. Guera firmly opined that it could not be done.

Thomassie just as firmly opined that the device could be made from the drawings.

In fact, a three-dimensional replica of the device was produced by Thomassie’s

firm. However, Thomassie did not determine whether it worked and could not say

with certainty that it precisely matched the patented device.

Bound, as we are, by La. C.C.P. art. 966, we must hold that these conflicting
expert opinions leave questions of fact and law that must be determined by a trial
of the motion for contempt. For this reason, we reverse the trial court’s judgment
and remand the motion for contempt to the district court for trial on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

6 La. C.E. art. 702.
7 Both engineers may, in fact, have the necessary qualifications, but the evidence in the record is

not sufficient to determine that their education and experience is adequate to permit them to
opine on the definition of the critical phrase as it is used in the military procurement process.

5