Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Crichton, creator of the television series ER, entered a 1994 Agreement with Warner Bros. Television containing a frozen rights provision requiring mutual agreement before creating derivative works. After Crichton's death, his rights passed to Roadrunner JMTC LLC, controlled by his widow Sherri Crichton. When WBTV developed The Pitt, a medical drama set in an emergency room, Roadrunner sued for breach of contract and implied covenant violations, claiming The Pitt was essentially ER 2.0. Roadrunner also sued other defendants including producer John Wells, actor Noah Wyle, and showrunner R. Scott Gemmill for intentional interference with the 1994 Agreement.
Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, arguing the claims lacked minimal merit. The trial court denied the motion, relying on a declaration from Steven Katz, who drafted the 1994 Agreement, to interpret the term derivative works broadly beyond its copyright law meaning. The court found Roadrunner established a prima facie case that The Pitt was derivative of ER. Defendants appealed, challenging the evidentiary rulings and arguing the trial court failed to address the implied covenant and interference claims separately.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held the trial court should have sustained defendants' objections to portions of the Katz declaration because undisclosed subjective intent is irrelevant to contract interpretation, and also should have sustained objections to parts of expert Todd Leavitt's testimony that constituted improper contract interpretation rather than custom and practice evidence. However, the court found expert Howard Rodman's testimony comparing the two shows was admissible for the extrinsic test of substantial similarity. Even applying the narrower copyright law definition of derivative works, the court found Roadrunner established a prima facie case that The Pitt was substantially similar to ER under both the analytical dissection and selection-and-arrangement tests, citing detailed similarities in plot, pacing, dialogue, mood, setting, and structure.
The court affirmed denial of the anti-SLAPP motion as to WBTV on the breach of contract and implied covenant claims, finding the covenant claim was not impermissibly duplicative because it protected Crichton's reasonable expectation of receiving credit for derivative works. However, the court reversed as to all other defendants on the intentional interference claim, holding Roadrunner failed to establish a prima facie case that any defendant other than WBTV had sufficient knowledge of the specific contractual obligations being violated and the requisite intent to induce a breach. The court found no evidence that Wells, Wyle, Gemmill, or WarnerMedia Direct knew their actions would likely result in breach of the frozen rights provision.
Key Takeaways
- Undisclosed subjective intent of a contract drafter is inadmissible to interpret contractual language; only objective manifestations of intent matter in contract interpretation under California law.
- Expert testimony comparing creative works is admissible for the extrinsic test of substantial similarity in copyright analysis, even when the works are television shows rather than music or computer code.
- A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of substantial similarity under both the analytical dissection approach and the selection-and-arrangement approach by identifying specific protectable elements or a coherent pattern of unprotectable elements.
- An implied covenant claim is not automatically duplicative of a breach of contract claim when it protects different reasonable expectations arising from the agreement, such as receiving appropriate credit for derivative works.
- Intentional interference with contract requires evidence the defendant knew enough about specific contractual obligations to know their actions would likely cause a breach; mere knowledge that some contract exists is insufficient.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standards for anti-SLAPP motions in contract disputes involving creative works, particularly regarding what expert testimony is admissible to establish substantial similarity. The ruling demonstrates that even under the more restrictive copyright law definition of derivative works, detailed factual showings about specific similarities in plot, pacing, structure, and other elements can establish a prima facie case sufficient to survive an anti-SLAPP motion.
The decision also provides important guidance on the knowledge element for intentional interference with contract claims, making clear that defendants must have sufficient awareness of the specific contractual terms allegedly being violated, not just general knowledge that some agreement exists. This protects individuals who work on projects without detailed knowledge of underlying contractual restrictions from interference liability.