215 Cal. App. 4th 172
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Spinner, an idea submission plaintiff, sued ABC for breach of implied-in-fact contract based on submitting a 1977 script and Outer Space Treatment that ABC allegedly used to create LOST.
- ABC decided not to produce Spinner's 1977 script; later submissions by Spinner in 1991 and 1994 were deemed not substantially similar to LOST, and Spinner conceded no substantial similarity to LOST’s treatment.
- LOST was independently developed by ABC personnel starting in 2003–2004, with Braun conceiving the core concept and Abrams, Lindelof, and Lieber drafting the pilot under ABC's direction.
- ABC conducted extensive searches and found the Outer Space Treatment in Leoni’s files but did not locate Spinner’s 1977 script in its records.
- Spinner alleged access to the 1977 script through ABC’s script-retention policy and intermediaries, but the court found no evidence of a workable nexus or actual access.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for ABC, holding that ABC independently created LOST and that Spinner’s evidence of access was speculative; Spinner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABC independently created LOST, negating use | Spinner asserts use via access and similarity. | ABC presents clear independent creation evidence. | Yes; independent creation established as a matter of law. |
| Whether Spinner shows a reasonable possibility of access | Spinner points to script-retention policy and intermediaries to infer access. | No strong nexus; access shown only by speculation. | No; access not shown as a matter of law. |
| If substantial similarity exists, does independent creation still defeat liability | Substantial similarity could indicate copying. | Independent creation defeats the use element regardless of similarity. | Yes; independent creation defeats use element notwithstanding similarities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715 (1956) (idea as subject of contract; disclosure can require compensation)
- Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Inc., 128 Cal.App.3d 628 (1982) (implied-in-fact contract elements; use evidenced by access and substantial similarity)
- Teich v. General Mills, Inc., 170 Cal.App.2d 791 (1959) (independent creation defense; conclusive evidence can negate inference of use)
- Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 631 (2007) (independent creation defense; undisputed evidence defeats inference of copying)
- Meta-Film Associates v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (access framework; substantial similarity can be rebutted by independent creation)