Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Elmo’s Kevin Clash Accusers: How Hush Money Works (and Doesn’t) in Sex Scandals
Category: News, Press | Saturday, November 24th, 2012 | Comments Off on Elmo’s Kevin Clash Accusers: How Hush Money Works (and Doesn’t) in Sex Scandals
Bryan Sullivan was quoted in Leslie Gornstein’s article “Elmo’s Kevin Clash Accusers: How Hush Money Works (and Doesn’t) in Sex Scandals.”
The full article can be found here.
Source: Leslie Gornstein, E!
Judge grants Miley Cyrus civil restraining order
Category: News, Press | Saturday, November 17th, 2012 | Comments Off on Judge grants Miley Cyrus civil restraining order
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge has granted Miley Cyrus a three-year civil restraining order against a man convicted of trespassing at her home in Los Angeles.
The stay-away order was granted Friday against Jason Luis Rivera by Superior Court Judge William D. Stewart.
The 40-year-old Rivera was convicted in October of trespassing at the singer’s home and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
He is scheduled to be released in May. Authorities said at the time of Rivera’s arrest in September that he was carrying scissors and ran into the wall of Cyrus’ home as if trying to break in.
Rivera did not respond to Cyrus’ petition.
The 20-year-old former star of “Hannah Montana” did not attend the hearing. Her attorney Bryan Sullivan declined comment.
Source: The Associated Press
Numerous other publications, such as Newsday, AOL, E!, Perezhilton and TMZ also ran the story.
Crowdfunding Rules: 3 Keys for Kick-Starting a Business with Web Money
Category: News, Press | Friday, November 9th, 2012 | Comments Off on Crowdfunding Rules: 3 Keys for Kick-Starting a Business with Web Money
Once the domain of artists and philanthropists, crowdfunding — in which several investors put up cash for a project or business idea posted to the Web — has become a major source of capital for start-up entrepreneurs.
According to data compiled by Crowdsourcing.org, Massolution, and more than 130 crowdfunding platforms, or CFPs, the industry is on track to raise more than $2.8 billion this year alone, up 91% from 2011 and more than triple 2010’s total.
President Obama deserves at least some credit for crowdfunding’s rise. Earlier this year, he signed the JOBS Act into law and in the process gave entrepreneurs the ability to raise as much as $2 million in seed capital without jumping through a bunch of oversight hoops, providing the business in question provides financial statements.
But even without said statements, it’s possible under the law to raise $1 million from investors who can pitch in as much as 10% of their income, up to $10,000 each. Fewer restrictions makes obtaining capital easier, which is the point.
An Imperfect Model
Yet easy money has its drawbacks. Critics of the crowdfunding model say that cheap access to capital could create a legal and PR nightmare.
In a recent blog post, Nick Petri of OpenView Venture Partners argues that lawsuits are all but inevitable: “If you’re taking on 1,000 investors who you’ve never met, you’re practically inviting one to sue you. Public companies don’t spend millions in legal fees on their IPO for fun — it’s to bullet-proof their financials and offering docs against litigation if the investment sours.”
Over at Forbes, attorneys Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma argue that crowdfunding is designed to appeal to “a less sophisticated investor who will invest in any project they think will be the next Facebook.” Cynical? Undoubtedly, but this same view is shared by several of my colleagues, as well as the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Finally, at TechCrunch, JOBS Act contributors Jason Best and Sherwood Neiss argue that appealing to a large base of equity owners can become an investor relations nightmare for the unprepared entrepreneur.
“Could you imagine adding an extra 10 hours a week of email management to your schedule? For crowdfunded companies that do not plan and execute properly, this can become their new reality,” they write.
Order in the Court… At Least So Far
For now, complaints and lawsuits have proven scarce. But that could change quickly when (not if) a high-profile crowdfunded start-up goes bust. Under the JOBS Act, investors may sue for a refund should there be evidence of a material misstatement or omission in prepared materials.
Think about the potential lawsuits. Public market investors are almost never made whole, even in cases of outright fraud, and still there are active class action suits against Citizens Republic Bancorp (CRBC) and Facebook (FB), among others. Crowdfunded failures could bring exactly the sort of windfall in attorneys’ fees that Petri envisions.
3 Pieces of Advice From a Veteran
So is crowdfunding for you, the entrepreneur? Salt Lake City start-up Xi3 took its shot and failed, but not before receiving commitments for $90,000 of the $250,000 it was seeking for producing a new line of grapefruit-sized gaming computers built as modules for easy upgrading.
“Future introductions of I/O Boards that feature new components [and] connectors are expected to allow Xi3 Modular Computers to enjoy useful lives of 6-10 years instead of the standard 3-5 years of traditional PCs,” the company said in its now-ended Kickstarter pitch.
Xi3 wasn’t looking to trade equity for cash so much as goodies and high-end systems, but its try at financing a signature product via Kickstarter offers lessons for those thinking of taking advantage of the new rules put in place by the JOBS Act. CEO Jason Sullivan offered three pieces of advice in a recent interview.
1. Experiment! Sullivan says to think of crowdfunding as cheap research. In the case of Xi3’s Modular Computer, the company promised early access to the machine, among other perks, in order to gauge interest.
“It’s like a test market, only better. That’s because the backers don’t tell you they would buy — they actually do buy through their pledge [or] backing,” Sullivan says. “This means they have confirmed interest in your product, at a set price, along with your market assumptions … all at the same time.”
2. Spread your bets. Sullivan says one of his regrets is not looking beyond Kickstarter when deciding to launch the Modular Computer via a crowdfunded campaign. Indiegogo.com rates as a popular second choice, one Sullivan says might have brought benefits to Xi3 because it lacks the screening that can lead to delays in working with Kickstarter. (Two weeks in Xi3’s case.)
Sullivan says, “According to Crowdfunding.org there are nearly 500 active crowdfunding services today. Is it possible that one platform will be better for a specific campaign than another? Even if the number of monthly visitors is lower — even significantly lower — than another platform? Perhaps so.”
3. Get comfortable with discomfort. Sullivan calls crowdfunding “social creation,” in that entrepreneurs and creators offer ideas, get feedback, and adjust, all before the product is delivered. Handling the inevitable back-and-forth with clients (provisional ones, at that) can be challenging.
“Crowdfunding is not for the faint of heart because it is very live and very real. So if your project is not put together well, the community will rightfully call you on it,” Sullivan says.
And what of the money? How much should you try for? How many investors? Sullivan doesn’t say, and maybe that’s the point. Regulators may see crowdfunding as a way to diversify or increase access to capital, but for entrepreneurs like Sullivan, it’s just another way to build a market.
Source: Tim Beyers, The Motley Fool
Indie filmmakers navigate wild west of foreign film distribution
Category: News, Press | Friday, November 9th, 2012 | Comments Off on Indie filmmakers navigate wild west of foreign film distribution
Overseas distribution transactions can involve shady players
More independent filmmakers with just a script and an actor or two attached are striking deals with foreign buyers eager to pick up distribution rights to the finished product. But while such deals provide them with a way to raise cash to make their movies a reality, entertainment lawyers caution that the market for foreign distribution rights is still a wild west filled with shady players.
“Many of them are fly-by-night operators with a loosey goosey way of doing business,” said entertainment litigator Alex Weingarten of Weingarten Brown LLP, who has sued foreign film distributors for breach of contract. “But ultimately, the problem is that you have international transactions that are frequently small, and that makes it difficult to justify pursuing the people involved.”
Last week’s American Film Market in Santa Monica saw an uptick in buyers who have come from around the world to trade rights in 442 films. There were more Asian and Latin American buyers than in years past, and companies from Korea and Japan increased the most among countries in attendance. And for the first time in years, major studios like Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures, which have access to global operations, were hawking the foreign rights to their movies, the Los Angeles Times reported.
That mutual interest reflects the difficulty of financing films in the economic downturn, as well as the growing clout of overseas markets. Foreign box office receipts are rising while U.S. ticket sales decline, and Brazil, India, Korea and Japan in particular have a growing appetite for American movies.
“These foreign markets have become not just an important revenue stream, but they functionally enable movies to get made,” said Ken Basin, an entertainment lawyer at Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP who advises independent filmmakers. “Sometimes you can finance nearly all of the picture that way.”
Foreign presale contracts are a key consideration in how banks determine how much in loans to dole out to independent film projects. The more revenues promised from a reputable distributor or sales agent, the more the bank will be willing to lend, using the presale agreement as collateral.
However, collecting on the royalties once the movie’s made and sent abroad often poses problems for filmmakers, lawyers said. Foreign distributors who perform accounting sleights of hand, resell rights they don’t own or who vanish altogether are only too commonplace.
Lawyers said doing due diligence on the other party is important.
Weingarten said he’s heard of distributors who have bought theatrical rights, only to illegally resell them to a TV station – once the movie hits TV screens, few viewers will go to the box office, and there’s nothing the filmmaker can do about it. He recalled another instance in which all of the assets of the distributor were encumbered by other liens.
“It’s very, very difficult to nail people down and find their assets, and most of the foreign film markets are small titles,” he said.
Bryan Sullivan, an entertainment litigator at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, said he advises his clients to get as much money upfront as possible, rather than wait to collect a share of the profits if the movie becomes a hit.
“You just don’t know how much the distributor’s really collecting, and they often don’t have the best bookkeeping – maybe on purpose,” he said.
Another helpful consideration is designating the International Film and Television Alliance as the arbitrator in the contract. According to IFTA rules, the losing party is barred from the U.S. film market if it doesn’t satisfy the judgments that come out of arbitration.
“To the extent the other party wants to participate in the U.S. market, that gives you more of a practical incentive because it impedes their ability to do business in a significant marketplace,” Basin said.
But even if the American film company wins a default judgment through arbitration, there’s no guarantee that it will get any money back, lawyers said.
Still, the process may be worthwhile, if only to clear the title pre-emptively.
“What’s important,” Sullivan said, “is to get a declaration that they don’t have any right or title in the film throughout the world.”
Source: Jean Yung, Los Angeles Daily Journal
Early Sullivan Lands Veteran Business Litigator Stephen Ma
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Lands Veteran Business Litigator Stephen Ma
Los Angeles, CA – October 23, 2012 – Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP (“Early Sullivan”), thriving in its second year after splitting from Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro LLP (“Glaser Weil”), has landed another high profile business litigator in Stephen Ma.
Among his recent successes, Ma obtained summary judgment on behalf of Bob Barker, host of “The Price is Right,” against plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims; advised and represented Warner/Chappell Music, the award-winning publishing arm of Warner Music Group, against a Los Angeles-based publishing company; and defended a national financial institution in connection with a U.S. Securities Exchange Commission investigation of alleged misrepresentations and kickbacks regarding investment advisor services.
“Steve Ma is a smart and tough litigator who has served as a trusted advisor for our company,” says Bill Lundregan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Esselte Corporation, the world’s leading global office supplies manufacturer. “We look forward to working with Steve and his new partners at Early Sullivan.” Ma’s business litigation and trial practice includes securities litigation, entertainment matters, business torts, professional malpractice, healthcare and employment discrimination claims. Prior to joining Early Sullivan, Ma was a partner at Glaser Weil. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Georgetown University in 1992 and his Juris Doctorate from Northwestern University School of Law in 1995.
“This is another step in us building a firm with attorneys from large law firms who, after experiencing big firm life, have a desire to practice in a boutique atmosphere,” says Eric Early, Managing Partner. “Steve shares our vision to create and sustain a model of providing stellar legal representation while efficiently staffing matters to control spiraling legal costs,” Early adds.
Early Sullivan, a business and entertainment law firm, represents a wide variety of clients in litigation, trial and transactions, including Fidelity National Financial, First American Title Insurance Company, American Broadcasting Company (ABC), EHR Aviation and Endemol USA, Inc. The firm’s success comes from its passion for the practice of law and relentless pursuit of client interests.
###
‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Category: Press | Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 | Comments Off on ‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Robert Kirkman, author of “The Walking Dead” comics that inspired the hit AMC zombie series, has reached a settlement over payments for the work of their original artist, Tony Moore.
The two childhood friends said they had resolved to “move on in their lives.”
Moore sued Kirkman in February, accusing Moore, a frequent comic collaborator, of tricking him into surrendering his rights to the early issues of “Walking Dead” in 2005 in exchange for payments that never came. Kirkman called the allegations “ridiculous,” and in turn sued Moore.
The gritty, realistic series — well, realistic except for the walkers — became a huge success and inspired the massive cable drama. Its third season will premiere next month.
Kirkman had made a joke months before the lawsuit was filed that Moore’s lawyer suggested could come back to haunt him if the case went to trial. In an interview for the Nerdist podcast, Kirkman was asked by an aspiring comic writer how to find an illustrator, and recommended, with tongue-in-cheek, “trickery and deceit.”
When TheWrap brought the remark to the attention of Moore’s lawyer, Devin McRae, McRae responded: “As the saying goes, in all humor there’s truth. And also, I think from my client’s perspective, Mr. Kirkman is clearly speaking from experience.”
But the conflict is buried now.
“Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore are pleased to jointly announce that they have reached an amicable agreement in their respective lawsuits and all parties have settled the entire matter to everyone’s mutual satisfaction,” the said in a joint statement. “Neither side will be discussing any details but will instead happily and productively spend their time focused on their own work and move on in their lives.”
Source: Tim Molloy, The Wrap
How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
Category: Press, Uncategorized | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
If an actress is able to get past any written agreement she signed and convince a judge that she worked on a film under fraudulent pretenses, more controversy could be around the bend.On Wednesday, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress featured in the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, sued [3] for allegedly being deceived into working in a “hateful anti-Islamic production.”
The lawsuit against producer Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) has garnered headlines because the film sparked rioting throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And if there wasn’t a big political/religious dimension to the litigation, it would still command interest because of the inclusion of Google/YouTube as a defendant. Garcia demands that the web giant remove the film from the video site because it allegedly violates her publicity and privacy rights and is damaging her. Takedowns already are controversial. This lawsuit raises the stakes by questioning whether there are circumstances beyond copyright infringement that necessitate a video’s removal.
But there’s another aspect to this case that’s also important and could cause much trouble in Hollywood: the relationship between actors and producers.
When most people agree to do a job, and that job turns out to be different than what is first represented, there’s easy recourse: The person quits.
For actors, it’s not that simple. The work might happen on set, but the performance happens onscreen, after producers, directors and editors tinker with the results of the footage shot. Catch an actor in a candid moment, and many will admit to having had a bad performance saved in postproduction — or complain of a good job ruined by all the tinkering.
Garcia is upset because the film didn’t turn out the way she expected. This is certainly a highly unusual situation. She says she was led to believe via a casting notice that she was working on an “historical Arabian Desert adventure film” and it turned into Innocence of Muslims, which she says caused her to lose her job, contact with her grandchildren and her sense of security. (The film has only been published [4] as a 14-minute “trailer,” so it’s hard to say what it is at this point.)
But it’s also not hard to re-imagine her lawsuit under different guises.
She says in the complaint [6]:
“Defendant Bacile’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff would be depicted as a concerned mother, were false. Instead, Defendant Bacile made an anti-Islam propaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to accuse the founder of the Islamic religion of being a sexual deviant and child molester.”
Now imagine if the complaint said this:
“Defendant Paul Thomas Anderson’s representations that he intended to make a ‘buddy’ film, and that Plaintiff Joaquin Phoenix would be depicted as an up-and-comer, were false. Instead, Defendant Anderson made an anti-Scientology propaganda film (The Master), in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to be victim to a cult.”
Or maybe this:
“Defendant Jerry Bruckheimer’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff Jake Gyllenhaal would be depicted as a strong male lead, were false. Instead, Defendant made a film (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) that caused audiences to laugh at him.”
One of the big questions here is the latitude producers and directors have in straying from the script. How legally protected is something like editing? Perhaps the sacrosanctity of postproduction is not a given, and representations made during the casting process are paramount.
Of course, Hollywood lawyers have imagined such legal nightmares, albeit not the kind that cause anti-U.S. uprisings. That’s why actors typically are made to sign written agreements, which raises the single most glaring thing missing from Garcia’s lawsuit: There’s no mention of the contract she signed. What exactly did she waive rights to?
“Typically, a producer has the right to edit footage and leave an actor’s performance on the cutting-room floor,” says David Stern, an attorney at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. “Nearly all acting agreements grant such rights to the producer and, further, bar the actor from seeking injunctive relief to stop the distribution and exhibition of a film. Even SAG acting agreements confer these rights to the producer. There is no duty to explain to an actor the political or societal implications of a project. In many films directed by Woody Allen, the actor does not get to see any portion of the script other than the actor’s lines.”
Other attorneys in Hollywood agree.
“Her best claim is false light because she agreed to perform a certain role and then her image was used for something else that damaged her,” says Bryan Sullivan at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “But it depends on what the contract says because the rights granted in them are typically broad and don’t give the actors much input.”
So the first thing that a judge probably would look at is Garcia’s contract. One of the things she’s suing for is violation of her publicity rights. If Garcia didn’t consent to the use of her image, the producer could be liable — not for an inflammatory film (free speech, naturally) but rather for professional negligence.
Assuming there is a contract with standard boilerplate language, Garcia probably will have a tough time winning this case — but maybe not an impossible one. As Sullivan suggests, there might be some wiggle room because of the unusual circumstances. The attorney adds that the key factors will be what was said about the script, what she knew and when she knew it.
If Garcia is able to convince a court that allegedly fraudulent pretenses should nullify whatever contract she signed, it could begin a slippery slope toward more claims like these in Hollywood. Nowadays, final cut goes to the person with the most bargaining power; in the future, it might really end up being with the person with the best lawyers.
Source: Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter Esq.
Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Category: News, Press | Saturday, September 1st, 2012 | Comments Off on Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Sources say amount could exceed $8 MIL and counting
The High Court has issued an “alternative writ” directing Gov. Togiola Tulafono to submit for legislative approval, legislation to pay the court judgement of more than $6 million against the American Samoa Government over the fire about a decade ago that destroyed the old Laufou Shopping Center.
The writ was based on a petition filed last week by attorneys for Progressive Insurance Company (Pago Pago) Limited, the insurance company for Laufou.
The writ to respondent Togiola Tulafono, in his capacity as governor, states that it “appears from the verified petition on file in this action that you have failed to perform your legal duty under A.S.C.A 43.1212(c) and that petitioner, the party beneficially interested, has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” according to the writ dated Aug. 27, signed by Associate Justice Lyle L. Richmond.
(According to the statute, ASCA 43.1212 titled “Payment of judgment or settled claim” and subsection (c), which states that, if any claim is allowed, settlement made or judgment rendered in excess of $25,000, the governor shall forward legislation appropriating funds for the payment of such amount to the Legislature, at its next regular session, for action. Additionally, the Treasurer is authorized to pay such amount as may be appropriated there-for by the Legislature.)
“Therefore, you are commended on or before Sept. 7, 2012, to forward legislation to the Legislature appropriating funds for the payment of petitioner’s judgement” in the amount of $6 million plus post-judgement interest at 6% from July 24, 2007 to the date of payment.
In the alternative, to show cause before the court on Sept. 14, 2012 “why you have not done so,” the order states.
How much the government will have to pay in total including the post judgement remains unclear but some in the legal community told Samoa News that it is probably over $8 million and counting.
The FY 2013 budget under Special Program budget category appropriates only $1 million for this case, which government calls in the budget document a post judgement case involving tort claims for the fire that destroyed the old Laufou, and following an appeal that vacated a judgement of $6.6 million, the Trial Division of the High Court entered a new judgement for the same amount.
ASG is presently appealing this second judgement but believes it will be prudent to set aside funds to pay the judgement if the Appellate court rules against ASG and therefore $1 million is sought in the budget document.
Progressive’s petition came after the Trial Court earlier this month which denied the government’s motion to alter or amend the judgement in this case. (See details in Aug. 9th edition of Samoa News)
Source: samoanews.com
Early Sullivan obtained the judgment and writ.
ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Category: News, Press | Thursday, June 14th, 2012 | Comments Off on ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Network says $16 mil could be lost if CBS restraining order permitted
ABC said it stands to waste $16 million in promotion costs if a federal judge grants CBS a temporary restraining order halting production on the Alphabet’s new reality series “Glass House” on the grounds that it is a ripoff of “Big Brother.”
In a 31-page filing in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, ABC also accused CBS of being “anticompetitive” in trying to put a stop to “Glass House,” set to debut on June 18, suggesting that it would “prevent American viewers from watching both shows to choose which shows they prefer (or to choose both).” ABC said that it has spent $27 million developing the show, which would be a “total loss” if Judge Gary Allen Feess were to halt the show altogether.
Although both shows contain similar elements, ABC contends that the shows are not “substantially similar” and the elements cited by CBS are not protected by copyright.
In its brief, ABC’s legal team said that “they are generic stapels of the reality show genre: people living in a house, competing with each other to avoid elimination, and winning a prize.” They also rejected CBS’ claim that even if the elements can’t be protected by copyright, the “sequence and arrangement” can. Citing the similarities across reality TV, including dance shows “Dancing with the Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance?” and fashion design shows “Design Star” and “Project Runway,” ABC’s attorneys wrote that “if inspiring the improvement and development of other television shows with a clever idea is copyright infringement, the reality television itself — indeed all of television (with its hospital shows, police shows, friends-in-an-apartment shows) would infringe.”
Much of CBS’s suit focuses on the fact that a producer of “Big Brother,” Kenny Rosen, is now executive producer of “Glass House,” and that he took trade secrets with him and poached “Big Brother” staff. In deposition, Rosen said that an assistant typed up the “Big Brother” House Guest Manual, but ABC pointed out that the manual was returned to CBS. It also challenged that the manual was a “trade secret” but rather “common sense instructions” to contestants, and that versions of “Big Brother” in other countries post the manual on the Internet. ABC calls the claim “impermissibly broad” and said that “should the Court find that some confidential information was taken, the remedy would be to prohibit the use of that specific information.”
ABC also rejected CBS’s claims of poaching of “Big Brother; staff, contending that a group of employees followed Rosen from “Big Brother” to “Hell”s Kitchen” at Fox, and then to “Glass House.” They said that Rosen “did delete some emails tangentially related to ‘Glass House’ after the litigation began, but those were emails he received and non-substantive.” A forensic firm, FTI was retained to image all of Rosen’s emails and his laptop and cell phone.
ABC is represented by a team led by Glenn Pomerantz at Munger, Tolles & Olson. Devin McRae of Early Sullivan Wright is leading the team for the other defendants, Rosen, Corie Henson and Michael O’Sullivan.
CBS said in a statement, “We believe that our filing last week, the testimony from copyright expert Jeff Rovin and “The Glass House” producer’s (Kenny Rosen) own deposition speak for themselves and speak loudly on our behalf. Nothing in the defendants’ submission can change the basic facts.”
ABC Fires Back at CBS Lawsuit Over ‘Big Brother’-Type Reality Show
Category: News, Press | Thursday, May 24th, 2012 | Comments Off on ABC Fires Back at CBS Lawsuit Over ‘Big Brother’-Type Reality Show
“Even CBS must realize it cannot copyright the idea of 14 contestants living in a house rigged with cameras,” the ABC court papers argue.
ABC has shot back in the legal war over its upcoming reality series Life in a Glass House, which is the subject of a federal lawsuit filed by Big Brother network CBS.
As we first reported May 10, CBS sued ABC and several producers for copyright and trade secret infringement, alleging Glass House is a “carbon copy” ripoff of Big Brother and is being produced by a team of 19 staffers who formerly worked on the long-running hit show.
CBS then filed court papers May 14 asking for limited fact-finding to support a planned motion for a preliminary injunction to stop development of the ABC series before its scheduled premiere on June 18. And now ABC has responded, offering its first detailed argument for why the case is bogus and the request for an expedited timetable for a preliminary injunction motion should be denied.
Calling the suit a “meritless attempt to shut down development of ABC’s newest reality television program,” the network claims it hasn’t even finalized rules or constructed a set, but it nonetheless lays out several alleged distinctions between the two shows: Unlike Big Brother, Glass House contestants will be able to see outside the house and interact with fans via social media, there will be no host (Julie Chen hosts Big Brother), and it will be team-oriented rather than the every-man-for-himself theme of Big Brother. For these reasons and others, ABC argues that the CBS copyright claim will fail. “Even CBS must realize it cannot copyright the idea of 14 contestants living in a house rigged with cameras,” the ABC court papers state.
On the trade secret violation claim, ABC argues that there’s nothing secret about a show that has aired on CBS since 2000 (and around the world via deals with creator Endemol) and that workers typically move around a lot in the unscripted TV business. “Employee mobility is the norm, not the exception in reality TV,” the ABC court papers argue. “Employees, who generally must be rehired each season, are often itinerant, going from series to series looking for a better opportunity.” That’s especially true at Big Brother, ABC argues, due to the show’s “low pay and 24 hour a day/7 days a week filming schedule.”
After arguing that Judge Margaret Morrow should deny the request for “expidited” discovery, ABC then sets out a proposed schedule that, if adopted by the court, would culminate in a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction June 11.
CBS wants the judge to intervene immediately, and the network is requesting permission to obtain documents and deposition testimony from ABC relating to Glass House and several former Big Brother producers who are involved in making the new show. CBS says the requests are urgent.
“Because Glass House is now in the midst of production, the value to Defendants of CBS’ trade secrets and confidential information is at its highest, and those trade secrets are likely being disclosed on the production of Glass House every day,” the network argues. “CBS will suffer substantial and irreparable harm if these wrongs are allowed to continue, as compared to the limited burden that this discovery will place on Defendants.”
With Glass House set to premiere in less than a month, the clock is ticking. Will CBS successfully persuade the judge to stop the show in its tracks?
ABC is repped by Glenn Pomerantz and a team from Munger Tolles & Olson and Devin McRae of L.A’s Early Sullivan firm. CBS is repped by Scott Edelman and a team from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
Source: Matt Belloni, Hollywood Reporter, Esq.