Wolf v. Travolta, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1077

Background

Wolf (and co-plaintiff Actors for Autism) alleges Travolta and related entities copied two written program guides (May 10, 2006 and Sept. 5, 2006) into a Program Service Guide published by Inclusion Films (allegedly first posted c.2010).
Wolf and Travolta previously collaborated; Travolta resigned from AFA in July 2006; AFA sought vendorization with regional centers in 2006–07 and was told a center had been working with Travolta on a program "identical" to AFA’s proposal.
Wolf registered the May 2006 work in Aug. 2006; the Sept. 2006 work was registered in June 2015. The suit was filed Feb. 6, 2014; the operative complaint (adding the Sept. work) was filed Aug. 5, 2015.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) plaintiffs’ works are largely unoriginal/derivative from third‑party sources and thus invalid, and (2) plaintiffs’ claims are time‑barred because injury or inquiry notice arose in 2006–07.
The court found triable issues on originality (denied summary judgment on copyright validity) but concluded (after assessing discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and continuous‑accrual arguments) that: (a) plaintiffs’ state law claims accrued no later than early 2007 and are time‑barred; (b) copyright damages are limited to acts within the 3‑year windows before each claim; and (c) plaintiffs produced no admissible evidence of defendant infringement within those 3‑year windows, so the court granted summary judgment on both copyright claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/originality of Wolf’s two copyrighted works	Wolf asserts her works are original and any similarities to third‑party sources are not dispositive.	Defendants show preexisting third‑party materials with overlapping language and contend the works are unauthorized derivative works and not copyrightable.	Denied as to invalidating the copyrights: disputed factual issues could allow a jury to find sufficient original, protectable material.
Accrual and statute of limitations for copyright claims under 17 U.S.C. §507(b)	Wolf contends she did not reasonably discover infringement until Nov. 25, 2012, so damages back to 2006–07 should be recoverable under discovery rule.	Defendants argue plaintiff had knowledge or inquiry notice by 2006–07, so §507(b)’s 3‑year limit bars earlier damages.	Held that claims accrue when owner knows or is chargeable with knowledge; plaintiff had notice/suspicion in 2006–07, so damages are limited to acts within 3 years before each claim; plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence of defendant acts in those windows, so copyright claims dismissed.
Fraudulent concealment/equitable tolling of statutes of limitation	Wolf says denials by Travolta, regional centers, and lack of evidence concealed wrongdoing until 2012.	Defendants say denials and lack of disclosure do not constitute active concealment; plaintiff had storm warnings and failed to investigate further.	Court rejects fraudulent concealment; denials/ignorance of evidence insufficient to toll; plaintiff had duty to investigate and cannot rely on inaction.
Applicability of continuous accrual/continuing‑violation to state law claims (misappropriation, conversion, interference, breach of fiduciary duty, UCL)	Plaintiffs claim defendants’ ongoing exploitation amounts to continuous violations that revive claims within limitations period.	Defendants argue the harms were discrete in 2006–07 and statutes bar the claims; some statutes treat continued misuse as single claim (e.g., trade‑secret law).	Court holds state claims accrued by early 2007 and are time‑barred; continuous‑accrual/continuing‑violation doctrines do not save the claims on present record (trade‑secret law treats continuing misuse as single claim; plaintiffs failed to show recurring independent breaches within limitations windows).

Key Cases Cited

Feist Publ’ns v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protection requires originality)
Petrella v. Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014) (separate‑accrual rule for successive infringements; §507(b) discussed)
Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004) (adopts discovery accrual for copyright §507(b))
Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 1994) (accrual when copyright holder has knowledge or is chargeable with knowledge)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and inferences)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment; view evidence in nonmovant’s favor)
Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 29 Cal.4th 215 (2002) (continued misuse after initial trade‑secret misappropriation treated as single claim under Cal. Civ. Code §3426.6)
Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (2013) (explains continuing‑violation and continuous‑accrual doctrines under California law)