Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.
60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 279, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6212, 151 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence that a product or idea was independently created is sufficient to dispel an inference of use as a matter of law, thereby defeating claims for idea misappropriation, breach of confidence, and breach of contract.
Facts:
- James Pascucci, president of Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. (HST), developed a concept for a reality TV show called 'Hollywood Screentest'.
- In January 2001, Pascucci contacted Jeffrey Zucker, an NBC executive, to pitch the show concept.
- Pascucci sent Zucker a PowerPoint presentation after faxing a confidentiality agreement, which stated that the information provided was confidential and proprietary to HST.
- Over the next 18 months, Pascucci had numerous communications with Zucker and other NBC executives, providing various written treatments and revised concepts for the show.
- During this period, NBC executives, including Zucker, expressed some interest but ultimately rejected Pascucci's final proposals in September 2002.
- In September 2002, NBC issued a press release announcing a new reality show called 'Next Action Star,' which Pascucci believed contained numerous elements from his 'Hollywood Screentest' concept.
- Unbeknownst to Pascucci, 'Next Action Star' was developed throughout 2001 and 2002 by three independent production companies: Brass Ring Productions, GRB Entertainment, and Silver Pictures.
- These independent companies pitched the fully formed concept for 'Next Action Star' to NBC in August 2002, after which NBC agreed to produce the show.
Procedural Posture:
- Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. and James Pascucci filed a second amended complaint against NBC Universal, Inc., NBC Studios, Inc., and Jeffrey Zucker in the state trial court.
- Zucker's demurrer to the breach of confidence claim was sustained with leave to amend.
- Appellants filed a third amended complaint, and the trial court sustained Zucker's subsequent demurrer without leave to amend.
- NBC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing all claims were barred by the independent creation doctrine.
- The initial judge indicated he would deny most of the motion but passed away before entering a final order.
- A new judge signed the appellants' proposed order denying summary judgment without a hearing.
- NBC filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the intermediate appellate court, which ordered the trial court to vacate its order and have a new judge decide the motion de novo on the existing record.
- The case was assigned to a new trial judge, who held a new hearing on the summary judgment motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's uncontradicted evidence of independent creation negate the essential element of 'use' as a matter of law, thus warranting summary judgment on claims related to idea submission, even if the defendant had access to the plaintiff's similar idea?
Opinions:
Majority - Chavez, J.
Yes. A defendant's strong and undisputed evidence of independent creation negates the essential element of use, entitling the defendant to summary judgment. Citing Teich v. General Mills, Inc., the court reasoned that while a defendant's access to a plaintiff's idea and the similarity of the final product can create an inference of use, this inference can be dispelled as a matter of law by direct and uncontradicted evidence of independent creation. Here, NBC provided extensive evidence through declarations and documents from multiple independent producers showing that 'Next Action Star' was created and developed by them long before it was ever pitched to NBC. Appellants failed to provide any admissible evidence to contradict this; their arguments based on similarities and suspicious timing amounted to mere speculation, which is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Because 'use' of the plaintiff's idea is an essential element for all of appellants' claims—including breach of contract, breach of confidence, and misappropriation—and the evidence of independent creation conclusively showed no such use occurred, all claims fail as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the power of the 'independent creation' defense as a complete bar to liability in idea submission lawsuits. It establishes that a defendant can defeat claims at the summary judgment stage by presenting well-documented, uncontradicted evidence that the allegedly infringing work was developed independently, even if the defendant had access to the plaintiff's very similar idea. The ruling raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to produce more than just evidence of access and similarity; they must present concrete evidence to challenge the defendant's proof of independent creation. The decision underscores the importance for production companies and networks to meticulously document their creative development processes to build a strong defense against potential misappropriation claims.
Unlock the full brief for Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.