Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo
329 F. Supp. 3d 1000
| N.D. Cal. | 2018Background
- Emma Cline and Chaz Reetz‑Laiolo had a prior romantic relationship; Cline wrote and published The Girls (2016) and Reetz‑Laiolo alleges she copied portions of his unpublished screenplay All Sea after accessing his materials.
- Cline admits she previously ran Refog keylogger software on a laptop she later sold to Reetz‑Laiolo; Refog screenshots and other captured data were later discovered on that machine.
- Reetz‑Laiolo (with Kari Bernard and Kristin Kiesel joining) sued alleging copyright infringement, SCA, Wiretap Act, CFAA, California computer crime and privacy torts, conversion, trespass to chattels, theft, and emotional distress claims. Cline (with her agent and publisher) filed declaratory and various tort counterclaims, including conversion and domestic violence.
- The parties cross‑moved to dismiss; the Court evaluated timeliness, preemption, privilege/anti‑SLAPP issues, and sufficiency of pleading on statutory and common‑law claims.
- The Court denied dismissal of many electronic‑privacy and computer‑crime claims (SCA, Wiretap, CCCL, trespass to chattels, intrusion, state constitutional privacy, IIED), dismissed Reetz‑Laiolo’s copyright claims (on substantial similarity) but allowed amendment for an "intermediate copying" theory, and dismissed several claims as time‑barred or for failure to allege required damages, often with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of Refog records & diary; timeliness | Cline: conversion claim timely as to Refog records (constructive trust/mistake accrual upon learning they remained) and diary tolled by defendant's promise to delete | Reetz‑Laiolo: claims time‑barred; Cline had constructive notice earlier and/negligently left files on sold laptop | Conversion claim as to Refog records survives (statute ran from 2015 disclosure); conversion claim re diary untimely — leave to amend for diary limited |
| Anti‑SLAPP / Litigation privilege for pre‑suit litigation communications | Reetz‑Laiolo: his settlement and pre‑suit communications protected by anti‑SLAPP and absolute litigation privilege | Cline: communications and injury occurred in NY; New York law disfavors pre‑suit anti‑SLAPP protection here and NY privilege narrower | Court applied choice‑of‑law analysis favoring New York anti‑SLAPP/litigation privilege principles for some communications; rejected dismissal on absolute privilege/SLAPP grounds — factual questions remain |
| Copyright infringement / substantial similarity | Reetz‑Laiolo: access + overlapping scenes/phrases show copying; also alleges literal/intermediate copying via possession of All Sea drafts | Cline et al.: similarities are ideas/scènes à faire, short phrases, and generic coming‑of‑age elements that are unprotectable; works not substantially similar; intermediate‑copying theory not adequately pleaded | Court granted dismissal of copyright claims for distribution/publication of The Girls (no substantial similarity); allowed leave to amend only if Reetz‑Laiolo can plausibly plead intermediate (literal) copying theory |
| Electronic‑privacy & computer‑crime claims (SCA, Wiretap Act, CFAA, California Penal Code §502, CIPA) | Reetz‑Laiolo/Bernard/Kiesel: Cline ran Refog and remotely accessed accounts, intercepted communications, and caused loss/damage | Cline: many statutory claims fail (SCA storage definition, Wiretap requires interception during transmission, CFAA lacks $5k loss, CIPA confidentiality, statute‑of‑limitations) | Court: SCA claims plausible (court follows Ninth Circuit district courts allowing statutory damages without actual damages); Wiretap claims likewise survive factual development about how Refog captured screenshots (cannot dismiss now); CFAA claims dismissed as to alleged losses (failure to plead $5,000) but related California Penal Code §502 claims survive (no $5,000 minimum); CIPA (Cal. §632) claims largely dismissed for lack of confidentiality allegations; various privacy and intrusion claims survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain more than conclusory allegations)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects expression, not ideas)
- Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing copying and unlawful appropriation; extrinsic/intrinsic tests)
- Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (intermediate copying concept discussed)
- Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985) (plot/sequence comparison and scènes à faire analysis)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006) (California choice‑of‑law governmental interest analysis and privilege questions)
- LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (CFAA private cause of action framework)