Gray v. Paramount Global
1:25-cv-03484
| S.D.N.Y. | Sep 15, 2025Background
- This opinion follows a September 2, 2025 order granting production of Gray-WGA communications.
- Gray alleges he co-wrote Top Gun: Maverick material; his cousin Singer allegedly wrote screenplay parts.
- Gray participated in story meetings and drafting of key scenes; suit includes copyright claims against Paramount entities.
- WGA conducted an MBA investigation and issued a determination that no viable MBA claim existed.
- Paramount sought Gray and WGA communications; privilege logs were exchanged and a discovery dispute ensued.
- Court reiterates that Gray must produce the communications, and the WGA subpoena is moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-client privilege applies? | Gray argues WGA communications are privileged under Upjohn. | WGA contends privilege belongs to WGA; Gray has no independent privilege claim. | No privilege for Gray; Upjohn either inapplicable or ownership lies with WGA. |
| Common-interest privilege applicable? | Gray relies on common-interest extension to protect communications. | Privilege requires identical interested parties and shared legal interests; not met. | Common-interest privilege rejected; interests not identical and asserted late. |
| Collective-bargaining privilege recognized? | Gray invokes a supposed union-communications privilege. | No recognized union-relations privilege in Second Circuit; not identified originally. | Collective-bargaining privilege not recognized; rejected for policy reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (classic corporate communications privilege framework)
- In re Cnty. of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007) (limits on the attorney-client privilege)
- United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) (common-interest privilege framework)
- Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2015) (requirements for common-interest privilege)
- Hernandez v. Off. of the Comm’r of Baseball, 331 F.R.D. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no union-relations privilege recognized)
- S.E.C. v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (moving target/forfeiture issues in privilege assertions)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (privileges are narrow and not freely created)