order v. bold films lp, bold film productions, llc, …...bold films lp, bold film productions, llc,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

RICHARD DUTCHER,

Plaintiff, v. BOLD FILMS LP, BOLD FILM PRODUCTIONS, LLC, OPEN ROAD FILMS, LLC, NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, and UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER Case No. 2:15-cv-110-DB District Judge Dee Benson

Before the court are five motions in limine filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. Nos. 287, 288, 290,

291, and 292) and seven motions in limine filed by Defendants (Dkt. Nos. 294, 295, 296, 297,

298, 299, and 300). The court held a hearing on the motions on March 19, 2019. At the hearing,

Plaintiff was represented by Steven Silverman and Perry Clegg, and Defendants were

represented by Jeffrey Hunt, David Reymann, Cheylynn Hayman, and Jeremy Brodis.

Following oral argument, the court made rulings, consistent with the reasons set forth on

the record, as follows:

The court denied Plaintiff’s motions, docket numbers 287, 288, 290, and 291. The court

found Plaintiff’s motion, docket number 291, to be premature and reserved decision on the

motion for trial.

The court granted Defendants’ motions, docket numbers 294, 298, and 299. The court

granted Defendants’ motion, docket number 296, with respect to infringement and denied it with

respect to access. The court reserved decision on Defendants’ motion, docket number 297, for

Case 2:15-cv-00110-DB-PMW Document 343 Filed 03/20/19 of 2

ADDENDUM 000023

Appellate Case: 19-4126 Document: 010110254053 Date Filed: 11/01/2019 Page: 93

2

trial. The court granted Defendants’ motion, docket number 300, with respect to authentication,

but reserved decision on Defendants’ remaining arguments for trial. The court took Defendants’

motion, docket 295, under advisement.

DATED this 19th

day of March, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00110-DB-PMW Document 343 Filed 03/20/19 of 2

ADDENDUM 000024




RICHARD DUTCHER,


Defendants.

ORDER Case No. 2:15-cv-110-DB District Judge Dee Benson

Before the court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Other

Evidence Re: Substantial Similarity as to Non-Protected Elements of Falling. (Dkt. No. 295.)

The court held a hearing on the motion on March 19, 2019. At the hearing, Plaintiff was

represented by Steven Silverman and Perry Clegg, and Defendants were represented by Jeffrey

Hunt, David Reymann, Cheylynn Hayman, and Jeremy Brodis. Following oral argument, the

court took the Motion under advisement. Now being fully informed, the court issues the

following Order.

Defendants’ Motion is hereby GRANTED. The court filters out the unprotected elements

of Falling, such that the “substantial similarity” analysis is “between the allegedly infringing

work and the elements of the copyrighted work that are legally protected.” Blehm v. Jacobs, 702

F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir. 2012); Country Kids ‘N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284

(10th Cir. 1996). Having engaged in this analysis, the court has determined that no reasonable

jury could find that Falling is substantially similar to Nightcrawler, after the unprotected

Case 2:15-cv-00110-DB-PMW Document 347 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 2

ADDENDUM 000025


2

elements of Falling have been properly removed from consideration. Accordingly, the court

hereby GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and the trial date set in this matter

is hereby VACATED. A Memorandum Decision setting forth the court’s analysis in further

detail will follow this Order.

DATED this 22nd

day of March, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson


Case 2:15-cv-00110-DB-PMW Document 347 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 2

ADDENDUM 000026




RICHARD DUTCHER,


Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Case No. 2:15-cv-110-DB District Judge Dee Benson

On February 15, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony or

Other Evidence Re: Substantial Similarity as to Non-Protected Elements of Falling. (Dkt. No.

295.) The court held a hearing on the motion on March 19, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 343, 346.) At the

hearing, Plaintiff was represented by Steven Silverman and Perry Clegg, and Defendants were

represented by Jeffrey Hunt, David Reymann, Cheylynn Hayman, and Jeremy Brodis. Following

oral argument, the court took the Motion under advisement. (Dkt. No. 343.)

On March 22, 2019, the court granted Defendants’ Motion in Limine to filter out the

unprotected elements of Falling, such that the “substantial similarity” analysis is “between the

allegedly infringing work and the elements of the copyrighted work that are legally protected.”

Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir. 2012); Country Kids ‘N City Slicks, Inc. v.

Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996). Having engaged in that analysis, the court

determined that no reasonable jury could find that Falling is substantially similar to

Nightcrawler, after the unprotected elements of Falling have been properly removed from

Case 2:15-cv-00110-DB Document 359 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 9

ADDENDUM 000027


2

consideration. Accordingly, the court reconsidered its previous ruling, granted summary

judgment in favor of Defendants, and vacated the trial date set in this matter.

The court did not provide complete analysis at that time, and instead stated that a

Memorandum Decision would follow the Order. Plaintiff then submitted a Motion to Vacate

Order Granting Summary Judgment and Request for Rule 56(f) Relief. (Dkt. Nos. 349.) The

court denied the Motion to Vacate, but allowed the parties to submit supplemental briefing

related to the protectable elements of Falling and substantial similarity. (Dkt. No. 353.) The

court now issues this Memorandum Decision consistent with the March 22 Order. (Dkt. No.

347.)

Background

Falling is a motion picture made by Richard Dutcher in 2007. (First Amended

Complaint, Dkt. No. 87, ¶ 1.) Falling depicts a freelance news videographer in Los Angeles,

sometimes referred to as a “stringer”. (Id.) The main character, Eric, drives the streets of Los

Angeles listening to police band radio for fires, accidents and crimes to record and sell. (Id.) Eric

records progressively more violent and distressing scenes throughout the film until he eventually

records a crime in progress that results in a murder in which he continues to record a dying man

without rendering assistance. (Id.) Mr. Dutcher screened the movie in Los Angeles and Salt Lake

City, and distributed a small number of DVDs. (Id.) Mr. Dutcher holds a registered copyright for

the Falling motion picture. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Nightcrawler is a motion picture produced and distributed by Defendants in 2014. (Id. ¶¶

1, 8-10.) Nightcrawler also depicts a stringer in Los Angeles who uses police scanners and


ADDENDUM 000028


3

searches the streets for crimes to record and sell. The main character, Lou, similarly records

progressively more violent crimes, including filming a murder and failing to aid the victim.

Both films involve main characters who are engaged in the stringer profession in Los

Angeles. Both films include a male protagonist and a female love interest. In Falling, the love

interest, Davey, is Eric’s wife, an aspiring actress. In Nightcrawler, the love interest, Nina, is a

reporter dependent on Lou’s continued submission of his sensational footage to her. At the end

of Nightcrawler, Lou ends up better off than when the film began, with new vans and several

interns. At the end of Falling, Eric appears to have lost everything as a result of his stringer

behaviors.

Discussion

To prevail on a copyright claim, the owner of a valid copyright must prove “that the

defendant unlawfully appropriated protected portions of the copyrighted work.” Gates Rubber

Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 832 (10th Cir. 1993). “This question involves two

separate inquiries: 1) whether the defendant, as a factual matter, copied portions of the plaintiff's

[protected work]; and 2) whether, as a mixed issue of fact and law, those elements of the

[protected work] that have been copied are protected expression and of such importance to the

copied work that the appropriation is actionable. Id. The second inquiry requires the court “to

determine which elements of Plaintiff’s work … are protectable.” Country Kids 'N City Slicks,

Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996).

In the absence of direct evidence, a plaintiff may prove that protectable elements of his

copyrighted work have been copied by showing that the defendant had access to the protected

work and that the allegedly copied material is substantially similar to the protectable portion of


ADDENDUM 000029


4

the copyrighted material. Id. at 832; Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1284. “Liability for copyright

infringement will only attach where protected elements of a copyrighted work are copied.” Gates

Rubber Co., 9 F.3d at 833.

Courts in the Tenth Circuit often find it useful to apply the “abstraction-filtration-

comparison” test. See id. at 834-42; Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1284-1288; Autoskill Inc. v. Nat'l

Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1490-98 (10th Cir. 1993) (overruled on other grounds).

The abstraction step requires the court to “separate the ideas…, which are not protectable, from

the particular expression of the work.” Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1284. The court then “filter[s]

out the nonprotectable components of the [copyrighted work] from the original expression.” Id.

Finally, the court “compare[s] the remaining protected elements to the allegedly copied work to

determine if the two works are substantially similar.” Id.

The court here has been presented with Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude

Testimony or Other Evidence Re: Substantial Similarity as to Non-Protected Elements of

Falling. (Dkt. No. 295.) That Motion requested that the court filter out the non-protected

elements of Falling prior to the case being presented to the jury for comparison to Nightcrawler.

The court agreed with Defendants that the “substantial similarity” analysis must be “between the

allegedly infringing work and the elements of the copyrighted work that are legally protected.”

Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir. 2012); Country Kids ‘N City Slicks, Inc. v.

Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996).

Abstraction and Filtration

The court must “eliminate . . . the unprotectable elements of ideas, processes, facts,

public domain information, merger material, scenes a faire material, and other unprotectable


ADDENDUM 000030


5

elements” prior to engaging in a substantial similarity analysis. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando

Chemical Indus., 9 F.3d 823, 833-34 (10th Cir. 1993). Most significantly here, the court must

exclude from consideration elements that are “standard, stock, or common” to the stringer

profession, including material that “necessarily follows” from that theme and setting. Autoskill,

994 F.2d at 1494 (internal citations omitted).

Falling is not the first work to portray stringers in action. The court reviewed the contents

of previous works submitted by Defendants, the “Prior Stringer Films.” (Dkt. No. 129.) Those

prior works contained all of the significant stringer themes that Plaintiff claims are independent

creations in Falling.

First, the similarities between the characters in Falling and Nightcrawler are due to their

profession as stringers. Both work as freelance videographers driving around Los Angeles,

listening to police scanners, and rushing to crime scenes for graphic and sensational footage to

sell to news stations. However, those similarities are also found in the stringer characters in the

Prior Stringer Films and are consistent with the idea of the stringer profession generally. As

such, they are scenes a faire properly excluded from the substantial similarity analysis.

Second, the similarities of the plot and plot sequence between Falling and Nightcrawler

are also attributable to scenes a faire of the stringer profession. The Prior Stringer Films show

characters driving the streets listening to police scanners, obtaining progressively more graphic

footage, and stringers drawn into dangerous situations. Absent those similarities, the plots of

Nightcrawler and Falling are quite different. Falling maintains a moral focus, including an

extensive exploration of Eric’s home life and wife. Nightcrawler focuses on an amoral character

that seems to place little value on the lives of those close to him. The endings are also very


ADDENDUM 000031


6

different, with Eric ending up losing everything due to his stringer behaviors in Falling, while

Lou seems to come away better following all of his devious stringer activities.

Similarly, the murder scenes in Falling and Nightcrawler are alike in that both men

engage in the stringer profession and fail to aid dying victims. However, this type of behavior is

also seen in the Prior Stringer Films, and is consistent with the general concept of the stringer

profession—to obtain graphic footage to sell to news stations. Otherwise, the murder scenes have

different settings, major differences in characters, and contribute differently to the overall plot.

Finally, the cliché journalism phrases identified by Plaintiff and depictions of the Los

Angeles LDS temple in Falling are not protectable expression. Plaintiff argues that language

used in both films—such as the phrase “if it bleeds, it leads,” and the viewer discretion warnings

given by newscasters prior to showing gruesome footage—are protected aspects of Falling that

were copied in Nightcrawler. Those phrases convey an idea “that is typically expressed in a

limited number of stereotypical fashions [and as such] are not subject to copyright protection.”

Lumos, Inc. v LifeStrength, LLC, 2014 WL 4355451 (D. Utah Sept. 3, 2014) (citation omitted).

As such, those phrases, while similar in both films, are properly excluded from the substantial

similarity analysis.

Similarly, use of the Los Angeles LDS temple in a scene of Falling is not protectable

expression. The Los Angeles LDS temple is a “real plac[e] known to the public.” See Walker v.

Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 50 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, its inclusion in a film based

in Los Angeles cannot be copyrightable. Id. Thus, the short clip of the Los Angeles LDS temple

in Nightcrawler cannot properly be considered in the substantial similarity analysis.


ADDENDUM 000032


7

Comparison

“The traditional test for substantial similarity is whether the accused work is so similar to

the plaintiff’s work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant

unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s protectable expression by taking material of substance and

value.” Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1288 (citation omitted). To apply this test, the court asks

whether an “ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to

overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same.” Id. (citing Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc.

v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir.1960)).

Absent unprotected material, particularly the scenes a faire that are consistently found in

the Prior Stringer Films, no reasonably jury could find that Nightcrawler is substantially similar

to Falling. The protagonists are very different characters—Eric is a generally moral character

who demonstrates significant remorse for his stringer behaviors; Lou is a generally amoral

character who does not seem to feel remorse for his actions. The female leads are very different

and maintain very different relationships with the male protagonists—Davey is Eric’s wife, who

he appears to love and care for deeply; Nina is Lou’s business contact, who he manipulates to

gain greater personal and professional advantage.

Furthermore, the plot and overall theme of the movies are not substantially similar.

Falling has heavy religious overtones and includes a main character who is struggling with his

identity as a stringer. Nightcrawler does not involve religion or morality in the same way but

rather focuses on an amoral character who is not developing or changing morally throughout the

film.


ADDENDUM 000033


8

The murder scenes are also not substantially similar. In Falling, Eric happens upon a

gang mugging during the day on the street and tapes the man assaulted rather than attempting to

assist him. In Nightcrawler, Lou unlawfully enters the private residence of a crime victim and

tapes one of the victims as he dies. In another Nightcrawler scene, Lou intentionally places his

intern in danger, causing him to be shot by police. Neither of the murder scenes in Nightcrawler

is substantially similar to the scene in Falling.

An ordinary observer would not view Falling and Nightcrawler and determine that “their

aesthetic appeal [is] the same” or that Nightcrawler must have “unlawfully appropriated …

material of substance and value” from Falling. Instead, the significant similarities between the

films are properly excluded from consideration, because they are consistently found in Prior

Stringer Works. Accordingly, Nightcrawler is not substantially similar to Falling under the

reasonable observer standard.

Having engaged in a substantial similarity analysis that properly excludes unprotected

material, as required by Tenth Circuit precedent, the court reconsiders its previous denial of

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 239) and finds that no reasonable fact-

finder could determine that Nightcrawler is substantially similar to the protectable elements of

Falling. Thus, even if Plaintiff were able to establish access, Plaintiff cannot show copying, and,

as such, judgment as a matter of law in Defendants’ favor is appropriate.


ADDENDUM 000034


9

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude

Testimony or Other Evidence Re: Substantial Similarity as to Non-Protected Elements of Falling

(Dkt. No. 295) and reconsiders its previous denial of summary judgment based on substantial

similarity. Summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor of Defendants.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson



ADDENDUM 000035




RICHARD DUTCHER,


Defendants.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case No. 2:15-cv-110-DB District Judge Dee Benson

It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine is

GRANTED and judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor of Defendants. This action is

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson



ADDENDUM 000036


1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD DUTCHER, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. BOLD FILMS LP; et al., Defendants/Appellees.

Case No.: 19-4126

ERRATA RE: OPENING BRIEF

The Opening Brief for Appellant Richard Dutcher omitted from the Table of

Authorities either a list of prior or related appeals (with appropriate citations) or an

express statement that there are no prior or related appeals. Per 10th Cir. R.

28.2(C)(3), Dutcher provides this errata to his Opening Brief and states that there

are no prior or related appeals.

Appellate Case: 19-4126 Document: 010110256051 Date Filed: 11/06/2019 Page: 1 Appellate Case: 19-4126 Document: 010110256099 Date Filed: 11/01/2019 Page: 1

2

Dated: November 6, 2019.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Stephen E. Silverman

Stephen E. Silverman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) STEPHEN SILVERMAN LAW 6945 E. Sahuaro Dr., Ste. 125 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 Telephone: (480) 747-0850 Facsimile: (480) 400-1065 [email protected] Attorneys for Appellant


3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this 6th day of November, 2019, a

true and correct copy of the foregoing Errata Sheet was filed and serve on counsel

for the parties via the Court’s ECF/CM’s system.

/s/ Stephen E. Silverman Stephen E. Silverman

CERTIFICATE UNDER ECF PROCEDURES

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that:

1. All required privacy redactions have been made.

2. If a hard copy of the foregoing document has also been submitted,

such hard copy is an exact copy of the ECF submission.

3. The electronic submission was scanned for viruses with the most

recent version of BitMedic, and is free of viruses.

/s/ Stephen E. Silverman Stephen E. Silverman


No. 19-4126

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

______________________

RICHARD DUTCHER, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v. BOLD FILMS, L.P., et al., Defendants/Appellees.

______________________

On Appeal of a Final Judgment from the United States District Court, District of Utah, Honorable Dee Benson, No. 2:15-cv-110-DB

______________________

BRIEF OF APPELLEES ______________________

Jeffrey J. Hunt (5855) David C. Reymann (8495) Cheylynn Hayman (9793) Stephen C. Mouritsen (16523) Jeremy M. Brodis (16006) PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees

Oral Argument Is Requested

January 6, 2020


mailto:[email protected]





4846-2225-7326 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. 3

PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS ......................................................................10

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .............................................................................11

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................12

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..........................................................................16

STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................16

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................17

1. Statement of Facts ..........................................................................................17

Falling and Nightcrawler .............................................................................18

Dan Gilroy’s Independent Creation of Nightcrawler ..................................23

Prior Stringer Works ....................................................................................27

2. Relevant Procedural History ...........................................................................30

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................33

ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................34

I. The District Court Correctly Concluded That No Reasonable Jury Could Find Nightcrawler is Substantially Similar to Protected Elements of Falling.........35

A. The District Court Properly Filtered Unprotected Elements of Falling as a Matter of Law ......................................................................................38

B. The District Court’s Use of the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test Was Proper .............................................................................................42

C. The District Court’s Scènes à Faire Analysis Was Correct ..................44

D. The District Court’s Substantial Similarity Conclusion Was Correct ...47

1. Illustrative Example ..............................................................................47

2. Application to Falling and Nightcrawler ..............................................51

II. The District Court’s Decision Can Be Affirmed on the Alternative Ground of No Copying as a Factual Matter Because There is No Evidence of Access and the Films Are Not Strikingly Similar ...............................................................58

A. There is No Non-Speculative Evidence of Access ................................59

B. Nightcrawler and Falling are Not Strikingly Similar ............................62


4846-2225-7326 2

III. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Dutcher’s Motion to Compel ............................................................................................65

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................66

ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................66

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................67

ECF CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................68

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................69


4846-2225-7326 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.,

2019 WL 4572676 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2019) ..................................................... 41

Acker v. King, 46 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D. Conn. 2014) ..................................................................... 41

Allen v. Scholastic Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................................................. 41

Arden v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1248 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ......................................................... 34, 40, 52

Autoskill Inc. v. Nat’l Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 36, 45

Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 43

Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454 (11th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 40

Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 32

Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 39

Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .......................................................... 40, 60

Blakeman v. The Walt Disney Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ............................................................ 40, 45

Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) .................................. 34, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 56, 58


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I51b00eb0ddc111e9a624fda6cf7cce18/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I153bf8a5453211e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I46e5aab01a4f11e0aa23bccc834e9520/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icc5b6ff7957f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I51bec3f6929111d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia2bea745970311d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id559c9a83fa411dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iec8cf70494ab11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I76fb696d5ee311e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib86bcc273e7d11de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 4

Brighton Collectibles v. RK Texas Leather Mfg., 2012 WL 6553403 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012) ..................................................... 47

Castro v. Cusak, 15-cv-6714 (ENV) (LB),

2019 WL 3385218 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019) ...................................................... 41 Chivalry Film Prods. v. NBC Universal, Inc.,

2006 WL 3780900 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006) ...................................................... 40

CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504 (1st Cir. 1996) ................................................................................. 47

Country Kids ‘N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen,

77 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 36, 45, 59

Cox v. Abrams, 1997 WL 251532 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 1997) ........................................................ 60

Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ................................................................. 40, 56

DuBay v. King, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2019) ............................................................... 40

Esplanade Prods., Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 768 F. App’x 732 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 40

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) .................................................................................. 34, 35, 50

Fisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 203 F.3d 834 (2000) ....................................................................................... 38, 47

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 39

Gable v. NBC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 815 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................. 40


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Idc45ba90483511e28a21ccb9036b2470/View/FullText.html?originationContext=typeAhead&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#sk=2.RZqYm6

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ide4993b0b0d411e9a3ecec4a01914b9c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0d2a2141958711dba10be1078cee05f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I24fb03bc934f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=97+f3d+1504

https://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?cite=77FE3D1280&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I1e515ce3566311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id26cd2c9560611d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I4e8577b041fa11e987fd8441446aa305/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I93b44f40672111e98440d2eaaa3f7dec/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5df39b1a9c9011d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?cite=203FE3D834&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I32590c1b384f11dbbffafa490ee528f6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I95a8333c9e4311dfa765bd122ea7dc89/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 5

Gal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ............................................................ 59, 63

Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) .................................................... 35, 36, 41, 44, 46, 62

Harbor Software, Inc. v. Applied Sys., Inc., 925 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ...................................................................... 38

Hoff v. Walt Disney Pictures, 2019 WL 6329368 (C.D. Cal. August 19, 2019) .................................................. 41

Hofmann v. Pressman Toy Corp., 790 F. Supp. 498 (D. N.J. 1990) ..................................................................... 59, 63

Hogan v. DC Comics, 48 F. Supp. 2d 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) .................................................................... 40

Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 43

Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2008) ................................................................. 39

Knowles v. Spin Master, Inc., 2019 WL 4565102 (C.D. Cal. September 17, 2019) ............................................ 40

Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 39

La Resolana Architects v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) .................................................... 34, 56, 59, 62, 63

Latele Television C.A. v. Telemundo Commn’s Group, 2013 WL 1296314 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2013) ...................................................... 50

Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 39


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I09763f1866cf11dcbd4c839f532b53c5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ic875dcc496fd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If4a0ff92564e11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iead91870110b11ea99759a7d72d9b23a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6e87c7f455ee11d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I32039e43568411d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icfb5aa7079d311d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ife4026a544fb11dd9876f446780b7bdc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ifac94da0dc0311e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I4d67f3c2970111d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I62bef3fbfd2d11ddb5cbad29a280d47c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id1f5e2cf9b8e11e2a160cacff148223f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib1c9f768945311d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 6

Lumos, Inc. v. LifeStrength, LLC, 2014 WL 4355451 ................................................................................................ 52

MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 495 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 17

Madrid v. Chronicle Books, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Wyo. 2002) ............................................... 36, 37, 39, 43

Mag Jewelry Co. v. Cherokee 496 F.3d 108, 117 (1st Cir. 2007)......................................................................... 59

Mallery v. NBC Universal, Inc., 2007 WL 4258196 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2007) ........................................................ 40

Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346 (C.D. Cal. 1984) ..................................................................... 60

Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 50

Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 46

Montgomery v. Holland, 2019 WL 4748056 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) ............................................... 40, 41

Mowry v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 2005 WL 1793773 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2005) ........................................... 56, 60, 63

Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 794 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................................................. 40

Murray Hill Publications v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 41, 55, 56

Nash v. CBS, Inc., 899 F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 39


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I43dcd43f33aa11e49488c8f438320c70/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If15a142c353a11dc962ef0ed15906072/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I1699dc7453f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2b2d2b2145e511dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad604ac0000016f7cae17a36e6e5c68%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI2b2d2b2145e511dcb979ebb8243d536d%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=63fb2a6f942a4f4988d5e2d1a805e5e7&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=e41fca5d8107641d88ffcf41ec74ca3fe5de6989e923efba7999810680181f37&originationContext=Smart%20Answer&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ice0a4fa6a40b11dc9876f446780b7bdc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I65f380b6557211d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbffaed79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I2fa80ca4942a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I092b1580620211e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7d82373e89fc11d98b51ba734bfc3c79/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ie30f8079971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 7

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) ....................................................................... 40, 42, 57

O’Neill v. Dell Pub. Co., Inc., 630 F.2d 685 (1st Cir. 1980) ................................................................................. 39

Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Co., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 39

Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 16, 65

Robinson v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 1995 WL 417076 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1995) ......................................................... 40

Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 38, 43

Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc., 753 F. App’x 501 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 40

Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................... 40, 56

Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D. Cal. 1992) ..................................................................... 50

Sheldon Abend Revocable Tr. v. Spielberg, 748 F. Supp. 2d 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .................................................................. 40

Shull v. TBTF Productions Inc., 18 Civ. 12400, 2019 WL 5287923 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2019) ......................................................... 41

Silas v. Home Box Office, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................ 41

Sinicola v. Warner Bros., Inc., 948 F. Supp. 1176 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ..................................................................... 40


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I344ffd96547311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I4d03afbd924b11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I25fca0e0425911df9988d233d23fe599/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I721c3ce1563c11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3f6498c6b2da11e5b4bafa136b480ad2/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I99e05140369611e98335c7ebe72735f9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0f5df80044c911e599358612e0bf9496/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If3ad982355fc11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If23f8a97c6f211df84cb933efb759da4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ifab50680f1f511e990f2fe58d44ebc3e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I77965fa0667111e6b63ccfe393a33906/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6544d4d0565c11d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 8

Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ............................................................... 37, 40

Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .............................................................................................. 34

Spring Creek Exploration & Prod. Co., LLC v. Hess Bakken Investment, II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 16

Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 46

TMTV, Corp. v. Mass Prods., Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.P.R. 2004) ...................................................................... 39

Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 33

United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 44

Vallejo v. Narcos Prods. LLC, 2019 WL 5867970 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2019) ........................................................ 40

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ....................................................................... 18

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) ....................................................................... 34, 36, 39

Webb v. Stallone, 910 F. Supp. 2d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ...................................................... 56, 62, 63

Williams v. A&E Television Networks, 122 F. Supp.3d 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ................................................................... 41

Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996) ................................................................. 39, 47, 48, 49


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id073dda7557111d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6b49770c9c2511d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib9ff3e003da911e89d97ba661a8e31a6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibfd126118ba511d9af17b5c9441c4c47/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ied776042542f11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I1cfd4fd2921211d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I00391c300b0b11eab410ab1c3b910894/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7a153b7004f211ea83e6f815c7cdf150/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib5709f8a94c711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Idadcb3a54f9311e2a531ef6793d44951/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I15ae17de4a8311e590d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I88ebbeab92b411d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 9

Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 613 F. Supp. 1107 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) ..................................................................... 40

Statutes 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................. 34 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) .......................................................................................... 17 Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) .......................................................................................... 67 Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) .......................................................................................... 67 Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) .................................................................................... 67 Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) ............................................................................................... 67 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ............................................................................................... 32


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I503f4db9557911d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/N654EAC40A06711D8B8FABFF7D35FC9C0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/ND600E7E0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0




https://www.westlaw.com/Document/NB2CA80F0B96911D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0

4846-2225-7326 10

PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS

1. Richard Dutcher v. Bold Films, L.P., Bold Films Productions, LLC,

Open Road Films, LLC, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, and Universal Studios Home

Entertainment, LLC, Appeal No. 19-4165 (10th Cir.), currently pending.


4846-2225-7326 11

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

1. Boldest Film CY Ltd. is the parent corporation of Bold Films, LP, and

Bold Films, LP is the parent corporation of Bold Films Productions, LLC. No

publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of Bold Films LP or Bold

Films Productions, LLC (collectively, “Bold”).

2. Open Road Releasing, LLC is the parent of Open Road Films, LLC

(“Open Road”). No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of

Open Road.

3. Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC (“USHE”) is an indirect

subsidiary of NBCUniversal Media, LLC (“NBCUniversal”). NBCUniversal is

indirectly owned by Comcast Corporation, a publicly held corporation. No other

publicly held corporation holds a 10% or more of the stock of USHE or

NBCUniversal.

Defendants/Appellees Bold, Open Road, NBCUniversal, and USHE are

collectively referred to as “Defendants.”


4846-2225-7326 12

INTRODUCTION

This case involves the straightforward application of settled copyright law to

two films that are dramatically different in almost every meaningful way. The

district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find Nightcrawler

is substantially similar to the protected elements of Falling, and therefore summary

judgment was proper. This Court should affirm.

Defendants produced and distributed the film Nightcrawler in 2014.

Nightcrawler was written and directed by Dan Gilroy, an acclaimed Hollywood

screenwriter with decades of experience and many credits to his name. After

Nightcrawler was nominated for an Academy Award for best original screenplay

in 2015, Plaintiff Richard Dutcher (“Dutcher”), a Utah filmmaker who describes

himself as the “father of Mormon Cinema,” brought this action alleging that

Nightcrawler infringed on his film Falling—a film Dutcher made but could not

sell, never commercially released, and screened only a handful of times in isolated

locations starting in 2008. Prior to this action, Mr. Gilroy had never even heard of

Dutcher, much less seen his obscure film Falling.

The only real commonality between the two films is that both have main

characters engaged in the “stringer” profession. A stringer is a real job, dating

back decades, in which freelance photographers and videographers obtain graphic

footage from accident and crime scenes to sell to local news outlets. Nightcrawler


4846-2225-7326 13

and Falling are not the first films or visual works to address this occupation. There

have been multiple books, movies, news stories, and television shows depicting

stringers that predate both of the works at issue here. All involve similar elements

of increasingly graphic footage, sales to news outlets, and dangerous situations.

Other than the occupation of the main character, Falling and Nightcrawler

could not be more different. Falling is about a lapsed Mormon missionary who

experiences moral decline as a result of his job, struggles to hold his marriage

together, and seeks religious redemption on his deathbed. Nightcrawler is about a

murderous sociopath who makes amoral decisions, thrives in his job as the result

of a soulless capitalist system, and ultimately succeeds because of his lack of a

moral compass.

Because both films involve the same profession, there are obvious

similarities that derive from that profession. Both characters drive around Los

Angeles listening to police scanners (as real stringers do), both arrive at accident

and crime scenes to obtain graphic footage that they sell, and both plots culminate

in violent murder scenes that lead to lucrative payoffs. Those elements are nothing

new. They happen in real life and are contained in multiple prior works also

involving the stringer profession. That is why copyright law does not protect those

types of general similarities, instead treating them as scènes à faire—elements that

one would expect to follow from a particular plot, profession, or story.


4846-2225-7326 14

Dutcher does not have a monopoly over any work about the stringer

profession. He was not the first to discover it, nor will he be the last to produce a

fictional work about it. Yet when he brought this action, he claimed that Falling

was the “first film to center on a stringer.” [Appellant’s Appendix (“Appx.”)

Vol.I:207.] Although the district court allowed Dutcher to survive a motion to

dismiss, discovery proved that Dutcher was simply wrong. On summary

judgment, the district court was given the benefit of multiple other works about the

stringer profession, as well as Mr. Gilroy’s own date-verified scripts for

Nightcrawler dating back to the 1980s. Between them, these works contained all

of the supposed similarities that Dutcher alleged Nightcrawler had copied from

Falling—establishing beyond dispute that those similarities were simply

unprotectable ideas or scènes à faire.

As a result, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury

could find Nightcrawler was substantially similar to protectable elements of

Falling. In doing so, the district court engaged in exactly the type of filtration

analysis this Court has not only endorsed, but required, in cases like this. That put

the district court in broad company with courts around the country, which routinely

and appropriately dismiss copyright claims as a matter of law after filtering

unprotected elements and subsequently determining that no reasonable jury could

find substantial similarity based on what is left.


4846-2225-7326 15

There was nothing radical about the district court’s decision. It was in

keeping not only with this Court’s precedent, but with well-settled principles of

copyright law. Dutcher’s insistence that he should be entitled to reach a jury, no

matter how dissimilar the works, because he personally believes the works are

similar is not supported by any authority and would eliminate the district court’s

important filtration role in copyright cases. The district court’s summary judgment

ruling was correct and should be affirmed.

In the alternative, although the district court did not reach the issue in its

final summary judgment ruling, this Court can affirm the district court on the basis

that the record contains no competent evidence of access necessary to establish

copying. Prior to this action, Mr. Gilroy had never heard of Dutcher or seen

Falling, and Dutcher adduced no evidence that Mr. Gilroy had access to that

unreleased film. Because there is no such evidence, Dutcher must establish that

Falling and Nightcrawler are strikingly similar—a rigorous standard that requires

the works be so identical as to preclude even the possibility of independent

creation. That standard is plainly not met here.

On either of these grounds, the district court should be affirmed.


4846-2225-7326 16

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Did the district court err in concluding on summary judgment that no

reasonable jury could find that Nightcrawler is substantially similar to protected

elements of Falling?

2. Can the district court’s ruling be affirmed on the alternative ground

that there is no competent evidence of access, and the two films are not strikingly

similar?

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Dutcher’s motion

to compel regarding expert Robert Gale?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On Issues 1 and 2, this Court “review[s] the grant of summary judgment de

novo applying the same standard as the district court.” Spring Creek Exploration

& Prod. Co., LLC v. Hess Bakken Inv., II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1032 (10th Cir.

2018) (citation omitted). On Issue 2, this Court “may affirm the district court for

any reason supported by the record.” Id. at 1032-33 (citation omitted). On Issue 3,

this Court “review[s] a district court’s discovery rulings, including the denial of a

motion to compel, for abuse of discretion.” Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526

F.3d 641, 647 (10th Cir. 2008).


https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib9ff3e003da911e89d97ba661a8e31a6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1032

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib9ff3e003da911e89d97ba661a8e31a6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_1032

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib9ff3e003da911e89d97ba661a8e31a6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f5906e5eb457b8557%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIb9ff3e003da911e89d97ba661a8e31a6%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=81a5c61a5eff7ee320c611c408068860&list=CASE&rank=4&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29




https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_647

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f590823fa457b85b7%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=1ae3cde6776bb9409aab081e448d9909&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f590823fa457b85b7%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=1ae3cde6776bb9409aab081e448d9909&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

4846-2225-7326 17

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Statement of Facts1

Dutcher brought this action in February 2015, alleging that the Oscar-

nominated film Nightcrawler was so similar to Dutcher’s film Falling that it

infringed his copyright. [Appellees’ Supplemental Appendix (“Supp.Appx.”)

Vol.I:40-63.] His claim was centered around his mistaken belief that his film was

the first to focus on a stringer, [Appx.Vol.I:207], a profession in which freelance

photographers and videographers take footage of lurid accident and crime scenes,

largely at night, and sell them to local news outlets.

Dutcher did not create the idea of a stringer. It is a real-life profession

dating back to the early 1930s and the godfather of freelance crime scene

photographers, Arthur “Weegee” Fellig, who listened to early police-band radios

so he could go to fresh crime scenes and obtain gruesome photographs to sell to

newspapers. [Supp.Appx.Vol.I:151-52.] Mr. Fellig’s exploits are detailed in a

1 Defendants submit their own Statement of Facts because Dutcher’s is argumentative and incomplete. Dutcher’s failure to properly cite the record is endemic throughout his brief. Many statements are simply asserted with no supporting evidence or citation. “‘Mere conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or any legal authority for support’ does not constitute adequate briefing.” MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 495 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); accord Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If15a142c353a11dc962ef0ed15906072/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=495+F.3d+1157

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If15a142c353a11dc962ef0ed15906072/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=495+F.3d+1157

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/ND600E7E0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230230324242

4846-2225-7326 18

number of books containing his photographs,2 and over the years many other films

and television programs in the public domain have also depicted the stringer

profession, including The Public Eye (1992), Prime Time Murder (1992), Stringer

(1999), The Ghouls (2004), an NPR radio piece entitled “Searching Out Mayhem

with Video ‘Nightcrawlers’” (2005), and twelve episodes of the reality television

program Stringers: LA (2007-08). All of these works, which have been

conventionally filed with this Court and are described in further detail below,

predate Falling (2008) and, as the district court concluded, contain the very same

elements that Dutcher claims Nightcrawler copied from Falling.

Falling and Nightcrawler

Falling and Nightcrawler are, quite literally, night-and-day different.

Dutcher’s brief is filled with characterizations and cherry-picked alleged

similarities of what he thinks the films are about. But like the district court, this

Court’s substantial similarity analysis is driven by its own review of the works, not

Dutcher’s characterizations. See Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 430,

434 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“In determining copyright infringement, the works

2 See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weegee (last visited January 4, 2020); Arthur Weegee Fellig, Naked City (1945); Arthur Weegee Fellig, Weegee: Masters of Photography Series, Aperture (1978); Arthur Weegee Fellig, Weegee’s New York: 335 Photographs 1935-1960 (1982); Pantheon Photo Library, Weegee (1986); Brian Wallis, Weegee: Murder is My Business (2013).


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f590d5e5d457b8799%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=10f5ddb3048d43e747025fc776cd5b7e&list=CASE&rank=2&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Smart%20Answer&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f590d5e5d457b8799%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI91482089557811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=10f5ddb3048d43e747025fc776cd5b7e&list=CASE&rank=2&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Smart%20Answer&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weegee

4846-2225-7326 19

themselves supersede and control contrary allegations and conclusions, or

descriptions of the works as contained in the pleadings.”). And when it does

review the two films, the correctness of the district court’s determination that the

films are not substantially similar will be manifest. Consequently, Defendants

offer the below brief summaries of the two works not to supplant the Court’s

independent review, but solely for the Court’s convenience.3

Falling.

Falling is a religiously-themed morality tale, told almost entirely in

flashback, about two essentially good people who, through a series of bad choices,

spiritually “fall” and are killed as a result.

The film centers on the relationship between two main characters: Eric

Boyle and his wife, Davey. Eric is an aspiring screenwriter and Davey is an

aspiring actress. Both are former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-

day Saints who previously moved to Los Angeles to pursue their Hollywood

dreams. Neither has succeeded and their religious faith has lapsed. Davey

continues to audition for small films, while Eric tries to sell screenplays, earning

money in the meantime as a daytime stringer. Eric’s time spent as a daytime

3 Should the Court desire a more extensive, scene-by-scene description of the two works with time references, see Supp.Appx.Vol.I:64-92.


4846-2225-7326 20

stringer is not a major part of Falling. The film dedicates less than five minutes of

total screen time to Eric visiting crime and accident scenes.

Both Eric and Davey emotionally struggle with the moral compromises their

work requires—Eric taking violent footage or writing violent screenplays and

Davey having an affair with a casting director in an attempt to get a movie part—

and the effects those compromises have on their marriage. Their stories parallel

the compromises they make as their relationship degrades, and as Eric laments the

loss of his faith. At one point, while on a payphone with Davey, Eric randomly

witnesses (rather than seeking out) a gang stabbing and murder, which he films

rather than helping the victim and then sells the footage. This scene, less than

halfway through the movie, is the last scene involving Eric acting as a stringer.

These moral failings inevitably lead to the destruction of Davey’s and Eric’s

marriage, as well as each other. Davey reveals to Eric that she had an abortion and

is not sure the baby was his. Eric responds by almost choking Davey to death.

Eric then discovers that his boss, Hector, has been murdered by the gang members

Eric recorded and that they have Eric’s address. Eric speeds home to find Davey

hanging from the ceiling, apparently staged by the same gang members. Eric then

confronts the gang members and kills them in gratuitously violent fashion while

being fatally stabbed himself. As Eric hallucinates near death, a sequence filled

with religious imagery depicts Eric kneeling before a Christus statue at the LDS


4846-2225-7326 21

Temple and begging God for help while stigmata-like cuts drip from his palms.

Then he dies and the movie ends.

Nightcrawler.

Nightcrawler is a film about a loner sociopath named Lou Bloom who,

devoid of any moral compass, views the world in purely transactional terms and is

unrestrained by empathy, guilt, or regret. Lou’s ultimate triumph is a direct result

of his lack of moral restraint and his elevation of business success over all else.

Nightcrawler has nothing to do with religion, aspiring actresses, or lost faith. It is

a critique of capitalism designed to illustrate how an amoral system unduly

rewards amoral actors like Lou at the expense of others.

Lou begins the film as a petty thief looking for a job. He comes across a

nighttime accident scene and observes a stringer named Joe recording gruesome

footage to sell to the local news. After Joe declines to give Lou a job, Lou decides

to become a stringer on his own.

From that point on, Nightcrawler is occupied almost exclusively by Lou’s

(largely nighttime) stringer activities and his interaction with the news station to

whom he sells his footage. Lou hires an “intern” named Rick to drive him around

and help decode the police scanner. Over the course of several weeks, Lou

becomes increasingly successful in selling his footage and upgrades his car and

equipment. He also becomes increasingly valuable to Nina, the news director of


4846-2225-7326 22

the local station who craves ratings. Lou uses this leverage to force Nina to go on

a date with him, and then to sleep with him.

Lou’s most lucrative footage comes when he races to a home invasion scene

before the police and records two murderers leaving the premises, as well as

graphic footage of the dead bodies inside. This footage is used by the news station

to produce several stories designed to stoke fear of poor people invading rich

neighborhoods—something that rates far higher than stories of crime in poor

neighborhoods.4 Before selling the footage, however, Lou alters it to hide the

identities of the murderers. He later uses this information to track them down and

stage an elaborate police shootout that he also records. In the course of this

shootout, several people are killed, including Rick, whom Lou intentionally lures

into harm’s way and records as Rick dies.

Following these events, Lou is interrogated by the police, to whom he

successfully lies and escapes without consequence. The film ends with Lou at a

new pinnacle of success, with two new vans and new “interns” driving off into the

Los Angeles night.

4 This theme is part of Nightcrawler’s critique of capitalism—the idea that footage of crimes against poor people in poor neighborhoods does not sell because poor lives matter less. In that way, this scene could not be more different than the murder scene in Falling, which is in a poor part of town involving an apparently poor victim.


4846-2225-7326 23

Dan Gilroy’s Independent Creation of Nightcrawler

Dan Gilroy is one of Hollywood’s most acclaimed screenwriters. Over a

career that has stretched more than thirty years, he has written approximately thirty

screenplays and co-written at least five more. Nine of his screenplays have been

made into commercially-released films, including Freejack (1992), Chasers

(1994), Two for the Money (2005), The Fall (2005), The Bourne Legacy (2012),

Kong: Skull Island (2017), Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017), and Velvet Buzzsaw

(2019). Mr. Gilroy’s work has garnered two Oscar nominations: a best actor nod

for Denzel Washington for Roman J. Israel, Esq., and a best original screenplay

nomination for Nightcrawler. [Appx.Vol.III:496-97, 525; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:151.]5

Like many screenwriters, Mr. Gilroy’s work has involved two basic types of

screenplays—works for hire from studios, which are typically done on short eight-

week deadlines, and what are known as “spec scripts,” unpaid projects based on

Mr. Gilroy’s own ideas that are developed over a much longer period of time with

the goal of selling the script to a studio. Screenwriters typically work on spec

scripts between paying work for studios. [Appx.Vol.III:503, 518-20;

Supp.Appx.Vol.I:151.]

5 See also https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0319659/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 (last visited December 23, 2019).


https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0319659/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

4846-2225-7326 24

Nightcrawler fell in the latter category. Mr. Gilroy first had the idea to write

a script based on a stringer more than thirty years ago in the mid-1980s, inspired

by the work of Arthur “Weegee” Fellig. [Appx.Vol.III:498, 500, 503, 507, 531,

536; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:151-52.] Mr. Gilroy’s early work on Nightcrawler is

documented in date-verified records from computer files from 1986 and 1990.

[Appx.Vol.III:546-51; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:151-52, 157-227, 228-241.] Significantly,

these records from three decades ago contain nearly all of the elements that

Dutcher claims Mr. Gilroy copied from Falling, including:

• A stringer (first a photographer, then a videographer) who works at night, listens to a police scanner to hear about crimes and accidents, tries to arrive before police, and obtains photos/video footage to sell to news outlets.

• Competition with rival stringers and negotiations with news outlets.

• A suicide victim who jumps off a building, but the stringer arrives too late to record it.

• A climactic murder scene in which the stringer arrives before the cops and just as the murders are occurring; takes photos/footage of the scene; finds a dying victim still alive who “hold[s] out his bleeding hand,” but the stringer fails to render any assistance; and the stringer sells his work for “the highest payday [he] has ever had.”

[Id.; see also Appx.Vol.III:500, 503; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:108-109.]

Between paying studio jobs, Mr. Gilroy continued to work on the

Nightcrawler idea on and off over the next twenty years. He took a significant

hiatus after the release of The Public Eye (1992), starring Joe Pesci, which also

featured a stringer who uses police scanners to learn about crime scenes, takes


4846-2225-7326 25

violent photographs, and sells them to newspapers. Because Mr. Gilroy, like most

screenwriters, strives to create original works, the release of The Public Eye

dampened Mr. Gilroy’s enthusiasm for the Nightcrawler project for some time.

[Supp.Appx.Vol.I:152.]

In 2005, however, NPR aired a story about real-life stringers entitled

“Searching Out Mayhem with Video ‘Nightcrawlers’” detailing the often violent

and dangerous work of stringers in Los Angeles. As NPR summarized the story:

They’ve been called the nightcrawlers of Los Angeles television—freelance videographers who chase shootings, fires, accidents and homicides to sell later to local television news stations.

*** The shooters, armed with cameras and police scanners, prowl the nocturnal Los Angeles metro area. Each siren wail or 911 call could be the sound of their next windfall—a choice piece of videotape can earn the shooter up to $10,000 a single night—but it’s also a dangerous way to make a living.

[Supp.Appx.Vol.I:153, 242-243; see also conventionally filed audio story.]

The NPR story rekindled Mr. Gilroy’s interest in the Nightcrawler project,

and he returned to writing treatments in 2005 and 2006. Shortly after hearing the

story, Mr. Gilroy’s 2005 notes describe an idea for “Weegie-like video news-

chaser” who is “[a]lways there first…. Arrives at a crime scene where a shooting

victim is still alive. Next moment, the guy is dead.” [Appx.Vol.III:523-24, 553-

54; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:153.] Another date-verified document from 2006 contains

the following notable elements:


4846-2225-7326 26

• The protagonists become stringers after happening upon a scene and observing others doing it (much like Lou Bloom in Nightcrawler).

• The use of police scanners and navigators to race around Los Angeles at night using increasingly super-charged vehicles and better technology.

• Intense competition among different stringer crews, including sabotage.

• Sale of a tape for $10,000.

• A main stringer character who is a violent sociopath.

[Supp.Appx.Vol.I:153, 244-265.]

Over the next several years, again between paying jobs, Mr. Gilroy

continued to experiment with various ideas, including multiple adolescent

protagonists who use chaos theory to predict accidents and crimes. But he

ultimately returned to the idea of a single protagonist, as he had started in the

1980s, this time as a sociopath anti-hero. [Appx.Vol.III:517-18, 528-30, 555-670;

Supp.Appx.Vol.I:153-154, 266-287, Vol.II:328-435, Vol.III:476-546, Vol.IV:587-

702, Vol.V:743-853.]

In 2012, Mr. Gilroy began transforming his hundreds of pages of notes and

research into a screenplay. [Supp.Appx.Vol.I:154, Vol.VI:894-1013,

Vol.VII:1054-1181, Vol.VIII:1222-1243.] He worked extensively on the

screenplay in Fall of 2012 while he was in London with his wife, Rene Russo, who

was filming Thor. [Appx.Vol.III:503-04; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:155, Vol.VIII:1244-

1353, Vol.IX:1394-1527, Vol.X:1568-1658.] Mr. Gilroy completed the final script

on October 9, 2012, and ultimately sold it to Bold, which produced Nightcrawler


4846-2225-7326 27

the following year. [Appx.Vol.III:543-44; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:155, Vol.X:1659-

1683, Vol.XI:1724-1882, Vol.XII:1923-2065.]

None of the foregoing is subject to any credible dispute. It is documented in

thousands of pages of notes, treatments, and scripts from Mr. Gilroy’s computers,

all of which have been date-verified back to the 1980s, [Supp.Appx.Vol.I:157-

227], and show the meticulous progression of the Nightcrawler idea from

conception to completion. Mr. Gilroy’s sworn testimony is that he wrote “every

word, every comma” of the screenplay. [Appx.Vol.III:505; Supp.Appx.Vol.I:155.]

Had Mr. Gilroy known about Falling when he was working on Nightcrawler

in the mid-2000s, perhaps it would have dampened his enthusiasm like The Public

Eye did in 1992. But hardly anyone knew about Falling because it was never

commercially released. It was essentially a niche LDS-themed film that Dutcher

was unable to sell and screened only a handful of times in Utah and California

beginning in 2008. [Supp.Appx.Vol.I:133-140.] It is undisputed that neither

Mr. Gilroy nor anyone connected to him had even heard of Dutcher, much less

seen Falling, prior to the initiation of this action. [Appx. Vol.III:540;

Supp.Appx.Vol.I:105, 110, 133-135, 155.]

Prior Stringer Works

As the district court noted, “Falling is not the first work to portray stringers

in action.” [Appellant’s Addendum (“Add.”) 31.] In conducting its filtration


4846-2225-7326 28

analysis and determining scènes à faire on summary judgment, the district court

had before it multiple other works involving stringers, all of which predate Falling,

(the “Prior Stringer Works”). Those works, which have been conventionally filed

with this Court, “contain[] all of the significant stringer themes that Plaintiff claims

are independent creations in Falling.” [Id.] They include:

The Public Eye (1992). This film stars Joe Pesci as a crime scene

photographer named Bernstein, based on real-life stringer “Weegee,” who uses

police scanners and obtains graphic photographs to sell to the local newspaper.

The film builds to a climax in which Bernstein, like Eric in Falling, hides in the

shadows of a restaurant and photographs a shooting but makes no attempt to help

any of the victims. Bernstein then arranges to publish the photographs and, like

Eric, finds himself on the other end of the camera when he makes front page news.

Prime Time Murder (1992). In this film, an experienced stringer named

Frank discovers a serial killer is murdering homeless people in Los Angeles.

While this film is a mystery rather than a morality tale, Prime Time Murder

contains numerous references to religion. Many scenes take place in a Christian

mission, Frank has a conversation about religion, the director of the charitable

mission is revealed to be the killer, and the final scene involves a discussion of the

biblical passage “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”


4846-2225-7326 29

Stringer (1999). This film follows an aspiring director named Filo who

works for a sketchy middleman named Wolko, played by Burt Reynolds. On his

first assignment, Filo records a man trapped inside a burning vehicle while

firefighters are attempting to save him, and he later struggles, like Eric in Falling,

with the morality of his job. Over time, Filo relinquishes his morality in favor of

obtaining more sensational and lucrative footage. In a significant murder scene,

Filo races to a grocery store after hearing a police scanner report shots fired, films

a dying man, and fails to render aid. The film ends when Filo kidnaps his

estranged girlfriend, records himself shooting her, turns the camera on himself, and

shoots himself after telling viewers to “enjoy the show.”6

The Ghouls (2004). In this low-budget horror film, a stringer named Eric

discovers there are ghouls living in the sewers of Los Angeles. In the opening

sequence, Eric films a brutal stabbing and makes no effort to help the victim. Eric

then taunts a competitor just arriving on scene that “you are a day late and a dollar

short, my friend,” and sells his footage to the local news. Eric later witnesses an

assault without rendering aid, fantasizes about putting a gun in his mouth, and

finds footage of a rape/murder that he sells for a lucrative payday.

6 The similarities between Falling and Stringer are truly uncanny. For a full breakdown, see Appx. Vol.III:461-70. Of course, no one contends Dutcher copied Stringer in making Falling, which is precisely the point.


4846-2225-7326 30

Searching Out Mayhem with Video “Nightcrawlers” (NPR 2005). This

story on real-life stringers in Los Angeles describes the profession in detail and

follows several stringers as they track accident and crime scenes, compete with

other stringers, and try to sell their footage to local news stations. The broadcast

specifically references a $10,000 payout.

Stringers: LA (truTV 2007-2008). This twelve-episode reality television

series showcases the work of real-life stringers in Los Angeles. The series shows

multiple stringers driving around, listening to police scanners, getting past crime

tape, and recording sensational footage such as car chases, fires, police shootings,

etc., to sell to the local news.

2. Relevant Procedural History

Dutcher initiated this action on February 19, 2015, alleging a single claim

for copyright infringement against Bold (the producer of Nightcrawler) and Open

Road, NBCUniversal, and USHE (distributors of Nightcrawler).7

[Supp.Appx.Vol.I:40-63.] Dutcher then filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

seeking to enjoin the further distribution of Nightcrawler. Defendants filed a

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The district court denied both

motions and allowed the case to proceed to discovery. [Appx.Vol.I:45-260.]

7 USHE was added by later amendment. [Appx.Vol.II:347-54.]


4846-2225-7326 31

Following discovery, in early 2018, Defendants filed two motions for

summary judgment—one on the issue of access/striking similarity, and one on the

issue of substantial similarity. [Appx.Vol.I:438-670, Vol.II:671-733.] In cursory

rulings made without oral argument, the district court denied both motions without

elaboration, stating simply that it found fact issues for trial. [Add. 21-22;

Supp.Appx.Vol.XIV:2444-2445.]

As trial approached, Defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude

argument to the jury about which elements of Falling were legally protected—a

determination properly made by the court. [Appx.Vol.VI:1350-55.] In

considering this motion, the district court concluded that Dutcher was wrong in

asserting that the court was powerless to filter unprotected elements from a subject

work in determining whether a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity.

The district court reconsidered its earlier denial of Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on substantial similarity, conducted the requisite filtration

analysis, and concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Nightcrawler is

substantially similar to the protected elements of Falling. [Add. 25-26.] The

district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, rejected serial challenges

by Dutcher to vacate that decision, and dismissed the case. [Add. 27-36.]

Dutcher attempts to make much of the fact that the district court changed its

mind when reconsidering its earlier rulings that substantial similarity was an issue


4846-2225-7326 32

for the jury. This is a red herring. It is settled law that “district courts generally

remain free to reconsider their earlier interlocutory orders” at any time prior to

final judgment. Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007);

accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A district court is not forever bound to conclusions it

reaches early in a case, regardless of how the briefing or evidence may develop.

Moreover, with respect to the motion to dismiss ruling, the district court did

not have before it the other stringer-related works that were central to its ultimate

conclusion that Dutcher’s alleged similarities were simply scènes à faire. It only

had Dutcher’s assertion that he was the first to create a work about a stringer,

which was incorrect.

As for the district court’s subsequent summary judgment ruling that it later

reconsidered, the district court originally seemed to accept Dutcher’s incorrect

assertion that the court could not assess whether the elements in Falling Dutcher

claimed were copied were protected as a matter of law. When the issue arose

again before trial, and at Defendants’ invitation, the court apparently took a closer

look at the dozens of copyright cases cited in Defendants’ prior summary judgment

motion in which courts have done exactly that. [Appx.Vol.VII:1443-1446.] In


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id559c9a83fa411dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f5919d0b1457b8bb0%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DId559c9a83fa411dcb979ebb8243d536d%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=e1e079d40d1250b0e355fe90d83db17a&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NB2CA80F0B96911D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=Fed.+R.+Civ.+P.+54(b)

4846-2225-7326 33

doing so, the district court got the law right, and the fact that it was the result of

reconsideration does nothing to establish error on appeal.8

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find

Nightcrawler is substantially similar to protected elements of Falling. In

determining that certain elements of Falling that Dutcher claimed were copied

were unprotected as a matter of law, either because they were scènes à faire or

otherwise, the district court engaged in the filtration analysis this Court has said is

proper in copyright cases. The district court’s conclusion that any similarity

related only to those unprotected elements was likewise correct.

The district court’s dismissal also can be affirmed on the alternative ground

that there was no evidence of copying as a factual matter. Prior to this action, Dan

Gilroy had never heard of Dutcher or seen his obscure film Falling. There was no

competent evidence of access below, and Falling and Nightcrawler are not

strikingly similar.

On either ground, the district court’s decision should be affirmed.

8 Cf. Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 581-85 (4th Cir. 1996) (affirming district court’s directed verdict to defendants following jury verdict on substantial similarity issue regarding film Passion Fish).


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1cfd4fd2921211d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=76+F.3d+579

4846-2225-7326 34

ARGUMENT

The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship fixed in any

tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). To fairly weigh the interests

of authors and the public, copyright protection extends only to “the components of

a work that are original to the author and possess at least some minimal degree of

creativity,” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 348

(1991), not to the ideas underlying the original expression. See Blehm v. Jacobs,

702 F.3d 1193, 1200 (10th Cir. 2012). Stated more directly, “copyright laws do

not protect ideas, but only particular expressions of ideas,” Arden v. Columbia

Pictures Indus., Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1248, 1249 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (emphasis added),

or “the original or unique way that an author expresses those ideas,” Walker v.

Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).

The reason for this balance is that copyright law recognizes “society’s

competing interests in the free flow of ideas [and] information.” Sony Corp. of

Am. v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). To prohibit the use of

ideas would stifle creativity and disrupt the public interest balance. See Blehm,

702 F.3d at 1201.

Mindful of this public interest balance, infringement may be established only

where a valid copyright exists and the second work actually copied protectable

elements of the first work. See La Resolana Architects v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/N654EAC40A06711D8B8FABFF7D35FC9C0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=17+U.S.C.+s+102(a)

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5df39b1a9c9011d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=499+U.S.+340

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5df39b1a9c9011d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=499+U.S.+340

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=702+F.3d+1193

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=702+F.3d+1193

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=908+F.+Supp.+1248

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=908+F.+Supp.+1248

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib5709f8a94c711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=784+F.2d+44


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I6b49770c9c2511d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=464+U.S.+417

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I6b49770c9c2511d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=464+U.S.+417

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=702+F.3d+1201#co_pp_sp_506_1201

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=702+F.3d+1201#co_pp_sp_506_1201

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I62bef3fbfd2d11ddb5cbad29a280d47c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=555+F.3d+1171

4846-2225-7326 35

1171, 1177 (10th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). For purposes of this appeal,

Defendants do not dispute that Dutcher has a valid copyright in Falling. The only

question is whether copying of protected elements occurred.

The “copying element of an infringement claim has two components.”

Blehm, 702 F.3d at 1199. “First, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant

copied the plaintiff’s work ‘as a factual matter.’” Id. (citation omitted). This is

often referred to as the “access” element. Id. Second, even if access is adequately

shown, “the plaintiff must establish ‘substantial similarity’ between the allegedly

infringing work and the elements of the copyrighted work that are legally

protected.” Id. (citation omitted).

Because the district court’s decision rested on the second component—lack

of substantial similarity—this brief addresses that issue first. But it is equally clear

from the record that Dutcher also failed to satisfy the access element, and the

district court’s decision may also be affirmed on that alternative ground.

I. The District Court Correctly Concluded That No Reasonable Jury Could Find Nightcrawler is Substantially Similar to Protected Elements of Falling.

“The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element

of the work may be protected.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 348. Even if copied verbatim,

unprotected elements “cannot serve as the basis for ultimate liability for copyright

infringement.” Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 833


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I62bef3fbfd2d11ddb5cbad29a280d47c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=555+F.3d+1171

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230232947209




https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5df39b1a9c9011d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233029929#co_pp_sp_780_348

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic875dcc496fd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233058557#co_pp_sp_506_833

4846-2225-7326 36

(10th Cir. 1993). “[L]iability for copyright infringement can only attach where

protected elements of a copyrighted work are copied.” Madrid v. Chronicle

Books, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1237 (D. Wyo. 2002) (emphasis added).

Among elements of a work that are not protectable by copyright are “ideas,

concepts, and principles.” Gates Rubber, 9 F.3d at 836. “[W]here the protected

work and the accused work express the same idea, the similarity that inevitably

stems solely from the commonality of the subject matter is not proof of unlawful

copying.” Country Kids ‘N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1285 (10th

Cir. 1996). Similarly unprotectable is “material in the public domain.” Madrid,

209 F. Supp. 2d at 1241. In any substantial similarity analysis, courts must “filter

out all unoriginal elements of a [work], including those elements that are found in

the public domain.” Gates Rubber Co., 9 F.3d at 837-38.

Of particular significance here, copyright also does not protect what is

referred to as scènes à faire. That doctrine “excludes from copyright protection

material that is ‘standard,’ ‘stock,’ or ‘common’ to a particular topic, or that

‘necessarily follows from a common theme or setting.’” Autoskill Inc. v. Nat’l

Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1494 (10th Cir. 1993), overruled on other

grounds, TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495 (10th

Cir. 2011). This doctrine eliminates not only stock elements, such as the “familiar

figure of the Irish cop” in police fiction, Walker, 784 F.2d at 50, but also “thematic



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1699dc7453f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233141452+-+co_pp_sp_4637_1237&firstPage=true&bhcp=1&CobaltRefresh=61401

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1699dc7453f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233141452+-+co_pp_sp_4637_1237&firstPage=true&bhcp=1&CobaltRefresh=61401


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I46b246c7928311d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233216962#co_pp_sp_506_1285


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1699dc7453f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233141452#co_pp_sp_4637_1237



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Icc5b6ff7957f11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233313875#co_pp_sp_350_1494


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib888a6230f7c11e19552c1f5e5d07b6a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=661+F.3d+495

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib888a6230f7c11e19552c1f5e5d07b6a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=661+F.3d+495


4846-2225-7326 37

concepts or scenes which necessarily must follow from certain similar plot

situations.” Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297, 1302 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

“Thus, courts comparing works must first distill the protectable elements of

the copyrighted work—i.e., determine what aspects constitute protectable

expression.” Blehm, 702 F.3d at 1200. A court may find non-infringement and

dismiss a copyright claim on summary judgment “where the similarity between the

works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiff’s work or no

reasonable jury could find the two works to be substantially similar.” Madrid, 209

F. Supp. 2d at 1239.

That is precisely what the district court did here. It reviewed both films and

“the contents of previous works submitted by Defendants,” the Prior Stringer

Works. [Add. 31.] That review revealed the elements Dutcher claims were copied

necessarily flowed from the “significant stringer themes that Plaintiff claims are

independent creations in Falling.” [Id.] On that basis, the district court concluded

that, “[a]bsent unprotected material, particularly the scenes a faire that are

consistently found in the Prior Stringer Films, no reasonable jury could find that

Nightcrawler is substantially similar to Falling.” [Id. 33.]

Although the organization of his brief is unclear, Dutcher makes four basic

arguments why he believes the district court’s analysis was wrong. First, he claims

the district court is powerless to determine whether certain elements are protected


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id073dda7557111d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233557790#co_pp_sp_345_1302

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233840963#co_pp_sp_506_1200



4846-2225-7326 38

as a matter of law, and must send that issue to the jury. Second, he argues the

district court erred in applying this Court’s “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test

to determine what was protected. Third, he argues the district court’s scènes à

faire analysis was flawed and should not have considered any of the Prior Stringer

Works. Fourth, he argues Nightcrawler and Falling are substantially similar. Each

argument fails.

A. The District Court Properly Filtered Unprotected Elements of Falling as a Matter of Law.

The vast majority of Dutcher’s brief rests on the assertion that a district court

cannot determine as a matter of law which elements of a copyrighted work are

legally protected. According to Dutcher, any time a plaintiff believes the works

are similar, the issue is contested and must go to the jury.

There is no support for Dutcher’s assertion. If that were the law, no

copyright case would ever be decided on summary judgment. Yet this Court has

affirmed dismissals as a matter of law based on lack of substantial similarity after

the district court properly filtered unprotected elements. See Blehm, 702 F.3d at

1200-01; Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133, 1138-46 (10th Cir. 2016);

Fisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 203 F.3d 834 (2000) (unpublished).

Other courts have confirmed that “the filtration analysis is a matter of law for the

Court, rather than for the jury.” Harbor Software, Inc. v. Applied Sys., Inc., 925 F.

Supp. 1042, 1046 (S.D.N.Y.1996). As one court explained:


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=702+F.3d+1200#co_pp_sp_506_1200


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3f6498c6b2da11e5b4bafa136b480ad2/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=809+F.3d+1133

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4ffba654795a11d99c4dbb2f0352441d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If4a0ff92564e11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=925+F.+Supp.+1042

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If4a0ff92564e11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=925+F.+Supp.+1042

4846-2225-7326 39

The decision of what constitutes “protected expression” must be made by the court as a legal matter. Once this determination is made, the question of whether two works are substantially similar (and corresponding application of the ordinary observer test) is a matter for the trier of fact[.]

TMTV, Corp. v. Mass Prods., Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 196, 211 (D.P.R. 2004)

(citation omitted), aff’d, 645 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2011); Peter F. Gaito Architecture,

LLC v. Simone Dev. Co., 602 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e have repeatedly

recognized that, in certain circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for a district

court to resolve [substantial similarity] as a matter of law[.]”); Kendall Holdings,

Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d 853, 865 (S.D. Ohio 2008) (role of

filtration is for court; trier of fact then assesses similarity of protected elements).

In the overwhelming majority of copyright cases involving film and literary

works—many involving challenges to well-known films and television series—

courts regularly grant summary judgment in favor of defendants on substantial

similarity grounds after filtering out unprotected elements as a matter of

law.9 Indeed, courts routinely dismiss claims even earlier at the motion to dismiss

9 See, e.g., Madrid, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1230-46 (Monster’s Inc.); O’Neill v. Dell Pub. Co., Inc., 630 F.2d 685, 686-90 (1st Cir. 1980) (novel); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 582-91 (2d Cir. 1996) (Jurassic Park); Walker, 784 F.2d at 46-51 (Fort Apache: The Bronx); Nash v. CBS, Inc., 899 F.2d 1537, 1538-43 (7th Cir. 1990) (Simon and Simon); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1078-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (Six Feet Under); Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994) (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids); Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1293-94 (9th Cir. 1985) (Coma); Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356-57 (9th Cir. 1984) (E.T.—the Extraterrestrial);


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ied776042542f11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=345+F.+Supp.+2d+196

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I9ff2299293bb11e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=645+F.3d+464

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I25fca0e0425911df9988d233d23fe599/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=602+F.3d+57

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I25fca0e0425911df9988d233d23fe599/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=602+F.3d+57

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ife4026a544fb11dd9876f446780b7bdc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=630+F.+Supp.+2d+853

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ife4026a544fb11dd9876f446780b7bdc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=630+F.+Supp.+2d+853

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1699dc7453f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230233903110%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_1239

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4d03afbd924b11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=630+F.2d+685

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4d03afbd924b11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=630+F.2d+685

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I88ebbeab92b411d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234646760%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_582

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I88ebbeab92b411d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234646760%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_582

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib5709f8a94c711d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235926488%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_46

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie30f8079971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234818996%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_1538

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie30f8079971d11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234818996%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_1538

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I32590c1b384f11dbbffafa490ee528f6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234841007%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_1078

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I32590c1b384f11dbbffafa490ee528f6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234841007%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_1078

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4d67f3c2970111d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234903395%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_1045

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4d67f3c2970111d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234903395%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_1045

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iec8cf70494ab11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234927388%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_1293

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib1c9f768945311d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234956709%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_1356

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib1c9f768945311d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230234956709%20-%20co_pp_sp_350_1356

4846-2225-7326 40

stage on the basis that “no discovery or fact-finding is typically necessary” when

making substantial similarity determinations because “what is required is only a …

comparison of the works[.]” Montgomery v. Holland, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 17-

CV-3489, 2019 WL 4748056, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).10

Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454, 460-64 (11th Cir. 1994) (Coming to America); Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 794 F. Supp. 2d 429, 444-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (AVP: Alien v. Predator); Blakeman v. The Walt Disney Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 288, 306-15 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (Swing Vote); Mallery v. NBC Universal, Inc., No. 07 CIV. 2250, 2007 WL 4258196, at *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2007) (unpublished) (Heroes); Chivalry Film Prods. v. NBC Universal, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 5627 (GEL), 2006 WL 3780900 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006) (unpublished) (Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers); Hogan v. DC Comics, 48 F. Supp. 2d 298, 310-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (comic book); Arden, 908 F. Supp. at 1249-63 (Groundhog Day); Robinson v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., No. 93 CIV. 2539, 1995 WL 417076, at *7-11 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1995) (unpublished) (Hi Honey! I’m Home); Sinicola v. Warner Bros., Inc., 948 F. Supp. 1176, 1177, 1184-91 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (Out for Justice); Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722, 724-36 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (Driving Miss Daisy); Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297, 1301-04 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (Stir Crazy); Knowles v. Spin Master, Inc., Case No. CV 18-5827 PA (JCx), 2019 WL 4565102, at *1, 6-8 (C.D. Cal. September 17, 2019) (unpublished) (Rusty Rivets); Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1123-24, 1151-69 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (Walk of Shame); Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1048-52, 1059-72 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (Desperate Housewives); Sheldon Abend Revocable Tr. v. Spielberg, 748 F. Supp. 2d 200, 208-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Disturbia); Gable v. NBC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 815, 838-48 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (My Name is Earl); Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 613 F. Supp. 1107, 1111-12 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (Raiders of the Lost Ark); Vallejo v. Narcos Prods. LLC, Case No. 18-23462-CIV-SMITH, 2019 WL 5867970, at *1- (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2019) (unpublished) (Narcos); DuBay v. King, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1330, 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (novel); cf. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1930) (seminal opinion by Judge Learned Hand dismissing claim as a matter of law). 10 See, e.g., Esplanade Prods., Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 768 F. App’x 732 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (Zootopia); Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc., 753 F. App’x


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f593e7788457b9838%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=ffba0242b1b13734f1df973f3f3f316e&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62aef0000016f593e7788457b9838%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=ffba0242b1b13734f1df973f3f3f316e&list=CASE&rank=1&sessionScopeId=1d36fb54ef91c1e3b64283c1d2252ddcb5bd7673bcccb57ab04af1d9d51b3fe6&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ia2bea745970311d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235022873%20-%20co_pp_sp_506_460

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I092b1580620211e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235043460%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_444

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I092b1580620211e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235043460%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_444

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib86bcc273e7d11de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235105858%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_306

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib86bcc273e7d11de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235105858%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_306

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ice0a4fa6a40b11dc9876f446780b7bdc/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235137197%20-%20co_pp_sp_999_6



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0d2a2141958711dba10be1078cee05f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235200515

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0d2a2141958711dba10be1078cee05f1/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235200515

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I32039e43568411d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235224227%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_310

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I32039e43568411d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235224227%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_310

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235946910%20-%20co_pp_sp_345_1249

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I721c3ce1563c11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235251243%20-%20co_pp_sp_999_7

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I721c3ce1563c11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235251243%20-%20co_pp_sp_999_7

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I6544d4d0565c11d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235333291%20-%20co_pp_sp_345_1177,%201184

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id26cd2c9560611d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235353330%20-%20co_pp_sp_345_724

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id073dda7557111d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235410467%20-%20co_pp_sp_345_1301

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id073dda7557111d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235410467%20-%20co_pp_sp_345_1301

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ifac94da0dc0311e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235429643%20-%20co_pp_sp_999_1,%206

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ifac94da0dc0311e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235429643%20-%20co_pp_sp_999_1,%206

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f5df80044c911e599358612e0bf9496/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235456685%20-%20co_pp_sp_7903_1123

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f5df80044c911e599358612e0bf9496/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235456685%20-%20co_pp_sp_7903_1123

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I76fb696d5ee311e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235531269%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_1048

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I76fb696d5ee311e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235531269%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_1048

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If23f8a97c6f211df84cb933efb759da4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235556035%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_208

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If23f8a97c6f211df84cb933efb759da4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235556035%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_208

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I95a8333c9e4311dfa765bd122ea7dc89/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235648764%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_838

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I95a8333c9e4311dfa765bd122ea7dc89/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235648764%20-%20co_pp_sp_4637_838

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I503f4db9557911d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231162919397#co_pp_sp_345_1111

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I503f4db9557911d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231162919397#co_pp_sp_345_1111

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I7a153b7004f211ea83e6f815c7cdf150/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163250199#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I7a153b7004f211ea83e6f815c7cdf150/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163250199#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4e8577b041fa11e987fd8441446aa305/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163328986#co_pp_sp_7903_1350

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4e8577b041fa11e987fd8441446aa305/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163328986#co_pp_sp_7903_1350

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I344ffd96547311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163355343#co_pp_sp_350_122


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I93b44f40672111e98440d2eaaa3f7dec/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163429409

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I93b44f40672111e98440d2eaaa3f7dec/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163429409

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I99e05140369611e98335c7ebe72735f9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163453562#co_pp_sp_6538_501

4846-2225-7326 41

The important role district courts play as gatekeepers in filtering unprotected

elements is so fundamental that in Murray Hill Publications v. Twentieth Century

Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2004), the Sixth Circuit reversed a $1.5

million jury verdict involving the film Jingle All The Way because the district court

failed to filter out unprotected elements before sending the case to the jury. After

conducting that filtration analysis itself, the court concluded that no reasonable

jury could have found the works were substantially similar as to protected elements

and directed judgment in favor of defendants. See id. at 321-26.11

To be sure, this Court has observed that filtering unprotected elements from

protected expression is the most difficult part of any substantial similarity inquiry,

Gates Rubber, 9 F.3d at 834, and “drawing the line between what is protected and

501, 501 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (Growing Up Hip Hop); Montgomery, 2019 WL 4748056, at *1-18 (Rosemary’s Baby); Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 7543, 2019 WL 4572676, at *1-6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2019) (unpublished) (Star Trek: Discovery); Shull v. TBTF Productions Inc., No. 18 Civ. 12400, 2019 WL 5287923, at *1-14 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2019) (unpublished) (Billions); Castro v. Cusak, 15-cv-6714 (ENV) (LB), 2019 WL 3385218, at *1, 7-10 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019) (unpublished) (Empire); Williams v. A&E Television Networks, 122 F. Supp.3d 157, 159-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Married at First Sight); Acker v. King, 46 F. Supp. 3d 168, 175 (D. Conn. 2014) (Stephen King novel); Allen v. Scholastic Inc., 739 F. Supp. 2d 642, 664 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire); Hoff v. Walt Disney Pictures, Case No. EDCV 19-00665 AG (KKx), 2019 WL 6329368, at *1-5 (C.D. Cal. August 19, 2019) (unpublished) (Zootopia); Silas v. Home Box Office, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1173-83 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d 713 F. App’x 626 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ballers). 11 For more comprehensive explanatory parentheticals for many of the cases cited above, see Appx.Vol.IV:727-33.


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I7d82373e89fc11d98b51ba734bfc3c79/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235859132

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I7d82373e89fc11d98b51ba734bfc3c79/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191230235859132

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I7d82373e89fc11d98b51ba734bfc3c79/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231164213802#co_pp_sp_506_321

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic875dcc496fd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=9+F.3d+834#co_pp_sp_506_834

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I99e05140369611e98335c7ebe72735f9/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163453562#co_pp_sp_6538_501

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163522457

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f302e20e41611e98386d3443286ab30/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163522457

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I51b00eb0ddc111e9a624fda6cf7cce18/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163559985#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I51b00eb0ddc111e9a624fda6cf7cce18/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163559985#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ifab50680f1f511e990f2fe58d44ebc3e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163629377

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ifab50680f1f511e990f2fe58d44ebc3e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163629377

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ide4993b0b0d411e9a3ecec4a01914b9c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163658955#co_pp_sp_999_1,%207



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I15ae17de4a8311e590d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163735066#co_pp_sp_7903_159

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I15ae17de4a8311e590d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163735066#co_pp_sp_7903_159

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I153bf8a5453211e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163758128#co_pp_sp_7903_175

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I153bf8a5453211e490d4edf60ce7d742/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163758128#co_pp_sp_7903_175

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I46e5aab01a4f11e0aa23bccc834e9520/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163815910#co_pp_sp_4637_664

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I46e5aab01a4f11e0aa23bccc834e9520/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163815910#co_pp_sp_4637_664

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iead91870110b11ea99759a7d72d9b23a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163841036#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iead91870110b11ea99759a7d72d9b23a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163841036#co_pp_sp_999_1

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I77965fa0667111e6b63ccfe393a33906/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163934696#co_pp_sp_7903_1173

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I77965fa0667111e6b63ccfe393a33906/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231163934696#co_pp_sp_7903_1173

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I766e9240182311e8803aaccdc56e447a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231164011196

4846-2225-7326 42

what is not will seem arbitrary.” Blehm, 702 F.3d at 1201 (quotations omitted).

But as Judge Learned Hand observed, “that is no excuse for not drawing it.” Id.

(quoting Nichols, 45 F.2d at 122).

In examining the record and determining that the similarities Dutcher

alleged were unprotected ideas and scènes à faire, the district court was not only

well within its proper role—it was fulfilling its fundamental duty in copyright

cases to determine what is protected as a matter of law.

B. The District Court’s Use of the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test Was Proper.

Dutcher also asserts that the district court erred by applying this Court’s

“abstraction-filtration-comparison” test. Dutcher argues that that test only applies

to computer software cases, and the district court instead should have applied the

“ordinary observer” test.

This argument is simply confused. There is no independent “ordinary

observer” test separate from the abstraction-filtration-comparison test. They are

part of the same test. The ordinary reasonable observer standard is simply the lens

through which a substantial similarity comparison is conducted after a court has

filtered out unprotected elements of a given work, using either the abstraction-

filtration-comparison test or whatever other filtration method the court believes is

appropriate. See, e.g., Blehm, 702 F.3d at 1200, 1202 (“courts comparing works

must first distill the protectable elements of a copyrighted work—i.e., determine




https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I344ffd96547311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=45+F.2d+122#co_pp_sp_350_122


4846-2225-7326 43

what aspects constitute protectable expression” and then “determine whether the

protected elements are substantially similar to the accused works” as viewed

through the eyes of an ordinary reasonable observer).

The district court found the abstraction-filtration-comparison framework

helpful for distilling the protected elements of Falling. In using that test for a

motion picture, it was not alone. The Wyoming district court did the same thing

when analyzing Pixar’s Monster’s Inc. See Madrid, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1241. But

nothing of importance turns on the name of the test. Whatever the test is called,

this Court has made clear that “our goal is the same: separating unprotectable ideas

from protectable expression.” Blehm, 702 F.3d at 1201 n.4; see also Jacobsen v.

Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 n.5 (10th Cir. 2002). As the Eleventh Circuit

explained:

It is essential that one keep in mind that the approaches adopted by the other circuits merely are a means to a very important end: filtering out all unprotectable material. Sometimes parties become so engrossed in disputing what “test” should be applied that they lose sight of what the tests were designed to accomplish in the first place. To paraphrase a sage observer, “if you don’t know where you’re goin’, when you get there you’ll be lost.”

Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1545 n.27 (11th Cir. 1996).

As this Court noted in Savant Homes, “[t]he district court’s ostensible

application of the AFC [abstraction-filtration-comparison] test involved no more

than what every substantial similarity analysis must entail: identifying a work’s




https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Icfb5aa7079d311d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=287+F.3d+936

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Icfb5aa7079d311d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=287+F.3d+936

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I51bec3f6929111d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231164856703#co_pp_sp_506_1545%20n.27

4846-2225-7326 44

protectable elements and determining whether there is substantial similarity

between the accused work and those elements.” 809 F.3d at 1144 n.10. The

district court did exactly that here, then applied the ordinary reasonable observer

test in determining that “no reasonable fact-finder could determine that

Nightcrawler is substantially similar to the protectable elements of Falling.” [Add.

33-34.] That is precisely how this Court has said the analysis should proceed.12

C. The District Court’s Scènes à Faire Analysis Was Correct.

Though he scatters them throughout his brief, Dutcher makes several

arguments attacking the district court’s scènes à faire analysis. Dutcher’s primary

argument is that the district court erred in considering the Prior Stringer Works

because they are obscure, and therefore there is no “stringer genre.”

Contrary to Dutcher’s assertion, the six different films involving stringers

(including Falling and Nightcrawler), the twelve episodes of Stringers: LA, and the

fact that a stringer is a real-life profession that has been documented in books,

12 Dutcher also cursorily argues that the abstraction-filtration-comparison test violates the Copyright Act by taking the issue of originality from the jury, and that this Court should abandon Gates Rubber and its progeny. [Br. at 54-58.] This is not a serious argument. It is tantamount to asserting that the district court can never make legal determinations about what is protected as a matter of law, forcing every infringement case to a jury, contrary to both this Court’s precedent and all of the extensive authority cited above. And in any event, Dutcher never raised that argument below, so it is unpreserved here. See United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2019).


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3f6498c6b2da11e5b4bafa136b480ad2/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231164919719#co_pp_sp_506_1144

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic875dcc496fd11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&userEnteredCitation=9+F.3d+834#co_pp_sp_506_834

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I00391c300b0b11eab410ab1c3b910894/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165233947#co_pp_sp_506_1196

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I00391c300b0b11eab410ab1c3b910894/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165233947#co_pp_sp_506_1196

4846-2225-7326 45

television shows, and news stories is more than enough to inform what elements,

scenarios, and actions are common to a story about a stringer protagonist. But

ultimately, whether there is an established “stringer genre” is irrelevant. When

determining whether elements are unprotected scènes à faire, the question is not

whether there is an established genre, but whether the material “necessarily follows

from a common theme or setting,” Autoskill Inc., 994 F.2d at 1494, “inevitably

stems … from the commonality of the subject matter,” Country Kids, 77 F.3d at

1284, or involves “sequences of events that necessarily result from the choice of a

setting or situation,” Blakeman., 613 F. Supp. 2d at 605. The Prior Stringer Works

before the district court, as well as Mr. Gilroy’s own independent creation

materials containing the same elements, were sufficient to make that assessment.

Dutcher also argues that the Prior Stringer Works are irrelevant because he

barely remembers The Public Eye and never saw the others. But that too is beside

the point. Indeed, it cuts the other way—the fact that other works have many of

the same elements as Falling despite Dutcher having never seen them only

underscores why those elements necessarily follow from a story about a stringer.

Dutcher next asserts that scènes à faire is an affirmative defense, citing an

unpublished district court decision and two cases from other circuits. While this

Court has never directly spoken to this issue, it has been clear that “to establish

copyright infringement, plaintiff must prove … that the defendant copied



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I46b246c7928311d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000016f5cdeeaa4b4513462%3FNav%3DMULTIPLECITATIONS%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI46b246c7928311d9a707f4371c9c34f0%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DUniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=db953289b20358b2cf258d0d4842d287&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=b3d32b30d7533eab5a9e10c86ef41d2daf28eb16d18cee84d67e1d7e43391713&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I46b246c7928311d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000016f5cdeeaa4b4513462%3FNav%3DMULTIPLECITATIONS%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI46b246c7928311d9a707f4371c9c34f0%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DUniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=db953289b20358b2cf258d0d4842d287&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=b3d32b30d7533eab5a9e10c86ef41d2daf28eb16d18cee84d67e1d7e43391713&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ib86bcc273e7d11de8bf6cd8525c41437/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165211447#co_pp_sp_4637_605

4846-2225-7326 46

protectable elements of the copyrighted work.” Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d

1366, 1370 (10th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added); see also Gates Rubber, 9 F.3d at

832. Such proof necessarily requires demonstration that the allegedly copied

elements are not scènes à faire, and thus protected. Ultimately, however, nothing

hinges on this issue. The district court made its decision on summary judgment,

not a motion to dismiss, and Defendants pled scenes à faire as an affirmative

defense. [Appx.Vol.IV:886.] Even if Defendants bore the burden of proving

scènes à faire, they satisfied it by submitting the Prior Stringers Works and Mr.

Gilroy’s independent creation materials to the court.

Finally, Dutcher asserts scènes à faire is a question of fact that should be

decided by the jury, citing Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004). But

that is not what Swirsky says. It says that it “is inappropriate to grant summary

judgment on the basis of scenes a faire without independent evidence, unless the

allegation of scenes a faire is uncontested.” Id. at 850 (emphasis added). Here, the

district court had independent evidence. And like Dutcher’s broader argument that

all similarity cases must go to the jury, his specific assertion that a district court

cannot assess and filter scènes à faire as a matter of law is incorrect and has been


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2fa80ca4942a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165310317#co_pp_sp_506_1370

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2fa80ca4942a11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165310317#co_pp_sp_506_1370



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibfd126118ba511d9af17b5c9441c4c47/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165406858



4846-2225-7326 47

rejected by this Court and numerous others. See Fisher, 203 F.3d at 834 (affirming

grant of motion to dismiss based on scènes à faire); see also supra nn. 9-10.13

D. The District Court’s Substantial Similarity Conclusion Was Correct.

Finally, Dutcher challenges the district court’s conclusion that there are no

substantial similarities between Nightcrawler and protected elements of Falling.

But after properly filtering out unprotected elements, there is no question the

district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

1. Illustrative Example.

This Court could pick any one of the forty cases Defendants cite in footnotes

9 and 10 above to see why the district court got it right here, but Williams v.

Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996), is illustrative. There, the plaintiff claimed

the novel and film Jurassic Park infringed on his Dinosaur World books, which

take place in a man-made animal dinosaur park where ordinary people can “visit,

13 The other two cases Dutcher cites for the argument that originality is always a jury question are even worse for him. Dutcher quotes CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1517 (1st Cir. 1996), [Br. at 39], but omits the following bolded language: “While we do not dispute that the question of originality can be a question of fact for the jury, it is not necessarily so…. [C]ourts clearly may determine the question of originality and, in turn, copyrightability so long as they do so in accord with the familiar rules governing summary judgment[.]” And in Brighton Collectibles v. RK Texas Leather Mfg., No. 10-CV-419-GPC, 2012 WL 6553403, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012), the court likewise held that “[s]ubstantial similarity is a fact-specific inquiry, but it ‘may often be decided as a matter of law.’” (Citation omitted).


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I4ffba654795a11d99c4dbb2f0352441d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000016f5ce24defb4513628%3FNav%3DNONUNIQUECITATION%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI4ffba654795a11d99c4dbb2f0352441d%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DUniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=3be6a88705f7c85479716b30cac9acc8&list=NONUNIQUECITATION&sessionScopeId=b3d32b30d7533eab5a9e10c86ef41d2daf28eb16d18cee84d67e1d7e43391713&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I88ebbeab92b411d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165623827







4846-2225-7326 48

tour, and observe the creatures in a natural but hi-tech controlled habitat.” Id. at

582-83. Both works share common ideas and elements, such as a brother and

sister who are chased by packs of carnivorous dinosaurs after an electric fence

fails, and a boy who becomes lost after taking an automated tour of the park. See

id. at 583-87.

Access to the plaintiff’s books was presumed, so the case “turn[ed] upon the

second part of the [infringement] test: whether, in the eyes of the average lay

observer, the Jurassic Park works are substantially similar to the protectible

expression in the Dinosaur World books.” Id. at 587. Walking through the

abstractions common to literary works—e.g., theme, characters, plot, sequence,

pace, and setting—and filtering out unprotected elements, the Second Circuit

affirmed that no reasonable jury could find the works were substantially similar.

Id. at 588.

Beginning with themes, the court reasoned the two works were similar only

as to the unprotectable idea of a dinosaur zoo. “Once one goes beyond this level of

abstraction, the similarity in themes disappears. The Jurassic Park works involve

genetic engineering, ego, greed, and the consequences of man’s hubris in believing

that nature can be controlled,” which the court recognized were absent from the

Dinosaur World books. Id. at 589.








4846-2225-7326 49

The court likewise reasoned the shared setting of a dinosaur zoo park “with

electrified fences, automated tours, dinosaur nurseries, and uniformed workers”

were “classic scenes a faire that flowed from the uncopyrightable concept of a

dinosaur zoo.” Id.

Regarding characters, the court recognized that both works featured siblings,

including brothers who were dinosaur enthusiasts, and characters who “spend the

night in the dinosaur zoo and escape from dangerous dinosaurs by helicopter

through the combined wit of the children and adults.” Id. Nevertheless, these

similarities did “not suggest infringement” because “[w]hen one looks beyond the

superficial similarities of the characters, many differences emerge, including the

motivations for the characters’ trip to the dinosaur parks, the skills and credentials

of the characters, and their interpersonal relationships” such that “no reasonable

observer would find substantial similarity.” Id.

As for plot and sequence, the plaintiff pointed to several specific similarities,

such as dinosaurs escaping from paddock fences and characters escaping pack-

hunting dinosaurs through the intervention of another dinosaur and a helicopter.

Id. n.3. Although the scenes “appear[ed] similar in their abstract description,” they

“prove[d] to be quite dissimilar once examined in any detail.” Id. at 590. For

example, the dinosaurs were not purposefully hunting the humans in the plaintiff’s

books as the velociraptors did in Jurassic Park. Id. Similarly, in plaintiff’s books








4846-2225-7326 50

the intervening dinosaur was “unsuspecting, non-threatening but well-armored,

whereas the tyrannosaurus rex in the movie is itself a marauding beast that has

terrorized the characters throughout much of the action.” Id.

Consequently, when the court analyzed how the scenes were expressed after

filtering out unprotected idea elements, the court concluded that no lay observer

would find substantial similarities between the protectable material from the works

and affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants. See id.14

14 Dutcher relies on Latele Television C.A. v. Telemundo Communications Group, No. 12-225390-CIV, 2013 WL 1296314 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2013), as supporting his sequence of events argument. But Latele was decided on a motion to dismiss, and the court inexplicably accepted the plaintiff’s comparisons described in the complaint “at face value” rather than reviewing the works themselves, contrary to clear governing law. See id. at *8. Similarly, Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069, (9th Cir. 2002), was decided on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of independent creation evidence or other works containing many of the same sequence of elements. Courts have since interpreted Metcalf narrowly and been reluctant to expand it without a striking overlap between nonprotectable elements. See 8th Wonder Entm’t, LLC v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01748-DDP-JCG, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) (collecting cases limiting Metcalf).

Finally, Dutcher’s citation to Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F. F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990), overlooks that after the Ninth Circuit decided that case, Feist clarified the law to such a degree that on remand, the trial court set aside a jury verdict and granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant. Shaw v. Lindheim, 809 F. Supp. 1393, 1400, 1402 (C.D. Cal. 1992).




https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id1f5e2cf9b8e11e2a160cacff148223f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231165948856&firstPage=true&bhcp=1&CobaltRefresh=72929



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbbffaed79db11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170009410


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Idd8797c0b18011e6afc8be5a5c08bae9/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000016f5ce8cb9ab4513b5d%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIdd8797c0b18011e6afc8be5a5c08bae9%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=807c6131d6112a95a6329ea5af22a0d6&list=CASE&rank=4&sessionScopeId=b3d32b30d7533eab5a9e10c86ef41d2daf28eb16d18cee84d67e1d7e43391713&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Idd8797c0b18011e6afc8be5a5c08bae9/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af00000016f5ce8cb9ab4513b5d%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIdd8797c0b18011e6afc8be5a5c08bae9%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=807c6131d6112a95a6329ea5af22a0d6&list=CASE&rank=4&sessionScopeId=b3d32b30d7533eab5a9e10c86ef41d2daf28eb16d18cee84d67e1d7e43391713&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If3ad982355fc11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170332968

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If3ad982355fc11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170332968

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If3ad982355fc11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170355355#co_pp_sp_345_1400,%201402

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/If3ad982355fc11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170355355#co_pp_sp_345_1400,%201402

4846-2225-7326 51

2. Application to Falling and Nightcrawler.

The district court here engaged in similar analysis and correctly concluded

that no reasonable jury could find Falling and Nightcrawler substantially similar in

terms of protectable elements.

Beginning with characters, the district court correctly observed that any

similarities between Eric and Lou were due to their profession as stringers, as

evidenced by other pre-existing stringer works. The actual ways in which Eric and

Lou are expressed as characters—a lapsed Mormon missionary versus a murderous

sociopath—could not be more different. [Add. 33.]15

The same is true of plot similarities, which the district court correctly

concluded were scènes à faire. While Falling and Nightcrawler contain elements

common to works about stringers, such as characters driving the streets listening to

police scanners, being drawn into dangerous situations, and obtaining

progressively more graphic footage, the plots themselves are “quite different.”

[Add. 31.] Falling is a religiously-themed morality tale told in flashback about the

consequences of losing one’s faith. Nightcrawler is a story told in linear fashion

about a sociopath who takes advantage of a ruthless capitalist system to achieve

business success. Nothing about either plotline is remotely the same.

15 A more detailed discussion of the differences between the various characters is available at Appx.Vol.IV:703-06.


4846-2225-7326 52

As for dialogue, the district court correctly held that the well-known

journalism phrase “if it bleeds, it leads” is the type of clichéd language that is not

subject to copyright protection. [Add. 32; Appx.Vol.IV:710]; see, e.g., Lumos, Inc.

v. LifeStrength, LLC, 2014 WL 4355451, No. 2:12-CV-1196-TC, at *9 (D. Utah

Sept. 3, 2014). Likewise, the fact that competitors taunt Eric and Lou about being

late is nothing more than an acknowledgement that, at its core, the stringer

profession is a competitive race to arrive first on the scene. That idea “necessarily

follow[s] from the common theme” of what stringers do. Arden, 908 F. Supp. at

1259.16

Dutcher’s primary argument is that the district court erred in failing to

recognize that the sequence of the films contain allegedly vast numbers of

similarities which purportedly “occurred in the same order and served the same

purpose” in the story. [Br. at 33]. Upon even cursory examination, however, it is

readily apparent that the generic sequence points Dutcher claims constitute a

protected sequence of events are either not really similar or are unprotected

elements that one would expect to see in a film about stringers. Indeed, Dutcher

admitted to the district court that “without the murder scene, Nightcrawler would

16 The same element is present in Ghouls (04:12-04:38) and Mr. Gilroy’s 1986 notes. [Supp.Appx.Vol.I:228-238.]


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I43dcd43f33aa11e49488c8f438320c70/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170443500



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170515439#co_pp_sp_345_1259

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0126ea45564511d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170515439#co_pp_sp_345_1259

4846-2225-7326 53

be nearly indistinguishable from [the reality television series] Stringers LA.”

[Appx.Vol.VII:1522.]

For example, Dutcher relies on events that share no similarities whatsoever

(e.g., equating “Eric finds Hector’s dead body” to “Lou follows the driver as he

gets the second gangster, follows them to a restaurant”) or that are exact opposites

(e.g., comparing “[t]he gangsters have been looking for Eric” to “Lou has been

looking for the gangsters” and “[t]he murderers track Eric down” to “Lou tracks

the murderers down”). [Appx.Vol.IV:1535-36.] Dutcher also relies on elements

that constitute the very definition of scènes à faire —such as that the first instinct

of a character whose profession is to capture sensational footage would be to “go

for [his] camera,” begin “filming immediately” to catch sensational footage, “hide”

so as not to interrupt what is unfolding, and “zoom” to obtain more lucrative

footage to sell. [Appx.Vol.IV:1530-31.] This type of sequence is not protectable.

As for the murder scenes, the district court correctly concluded that the two

scenes “have different settings, major differences in characters, and contribute

differently to the overall plot.” [Add. 32.] In Falling, the scene occurs in broad

daylight, in the alley of a public street in a rundown part of town, and the murder

involves a single victim stabbed with a knife. Eric is on the scene by sheer

happenstance, not by choice. [Add. 34; Falling at 28:02-30:29.]


4846-2225-7326 54

In Nightcrawler, the murder scene occurs in full dark, at a private residence

in an affluent part of town, and the murder involves multiple victims killed with

firearms. Lou is intentionally on the scene after racing there and does not tape the

murderers shooting the victim, only the shots from outside the home. Lou comes

across a victim during his search of the home and briefly records him while he

purportedly take his last breath. [Add. 34; Nightcrawler at 01:02:00-01:02:58].17

Those scenes are not substantially similar.

Incidentally, even if Dutcher were granted a protected monopoly over the

general sequence of events he describes, this Court may affirm the district court on

the alternative basis that it is undisputed Dan Gilroy independently conceived of

the same general idea years before Dutcher wrote Falling:18

1999 Falling Script

Dan Gilroy 1986 Nightcrawler Notes

Eric is [] late [to a suicide jumper] and misses getting marketable footage

Hunch is late to a suicide jumper and misses getting marketable footage

Eric arrives at a murder scene before police and witnesses the murder

Hunch arrives at a murder scene before the police and witnesses the murder

Eric does not call the police despite having the ability to do so

No mention of Hunch calling the police

Eric records the murder as it happens Hunch arrives just as the murders occur Eric comes upon a murder victim who is just moments from dying

Hunch comes upon a murder victim who is just moments from dying

17 The same idea of a stringer taping a dying man without rendering assistance appears in other stringer works as well. See, e.g., Stringer at 37:18-40:12. 18 Compare Supp.Appx.Vol.I:93-96 with Supp.Appx.Vol.I:228-238.


4846-2225-7326 55

[The victim reaches out his hand to Eric for help.]

[The victim reaches out his hand to Hunch for help.]

Eric videotapes the victim’s last moments instead of offering aid or comfort

Hunch photographs the victim’s last moments instead of offering aid or comfort

Eric sells the murder recording for $20,000

Hunch sells his pictures to the newspaper and gets “the highest payday Hunch[] has ever had.”

The “purpose of the substantial-similarity analysis is to answer the question

whether the defendant copied the work of the plaintiff.” Murray Hill, 361 F.3d at

326. Where a defendant “owns a prior work containing the same elements, he has

no reason, beyond the illicit thrill of copyright infringement, to copy wrongfully

from another what he could legally copy from himself. Therefore, where an

element occurs both in the defendant’s prior work and the plaintiff’s prior work, no

inference of copying can be drawn.” Id.

Finally, the district court correctly rejected Dutcher’s assertion that the

generic lists of comparisons compiled by two of his experts created a fact issue and

prohibited the district court from engaging in its own independent analysis and

substantial similarity comparison of the two films. As the Sixth Circuit has

recognized:

The question of substantial similarity can usually be decided on the basis of the works themselves and rarely, if ever, involves questions of credibility, the peculiar province of the jury. [And] while judges “may not be qualified literary critics, they are fitted by training and experience to compare literary works and determine whether they evidence substantial similarity.”





4846-2225-7326 56

Murray Hill Publ’ns, 361 F.3d at 321 (quotation omitted).

Moreover, the question of whether works are substantially similar is judged

by the lens of the ordinary observer, not a supposed literary expert. See Blehm,

702 F.3d at 1202. Unlike other types of copyright cases involving technical works,

like the software code and music cases on which Dutcher relies, numerous courts

have recognized that for literary works, “the jury is capable of recognizing and

understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert.”

Shame on You, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1147; accord, e.g., Denker, 820 F. Supp. at 729,

aff’d, 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1993); Mowry v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., No.

03Civ.3090(AJP), 2005 WL 1793773 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2005), at *10; Webb v.

Stallone, 910 F. Supp. 2d 681, 689 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); cf. La Resolana, 555 F.3d

at 1181 (excluding lay witness testimony because “it was the responsibility of the

district court to decide, for itself, whether the plans were substantially similar”).19

19 Regardless, even if this Court were to conclude that expert testimony is relevant to the issue of substantial similarity in this context, Dutcher’s two experts employed an unreliable methodology that failed to filter unprotected elements before comparing the two works. They indiscriminately compared every element of the two films, whether or not the similarities were unprotected ideas, scènes à faire, or independently created by Dan Gilroy before Falling existed, conceded they had no understanding of the legal tests for substantial similarity, and made no effort to review other public domain works involving stringers. [Supp.Appx.Vol.XIII:2106-2310.] This Court can affirm the district court’s rejection of those expert reports on that alternative ground.



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?originationContext=typeAhead&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad8647d0503a11e280719c3f0e80bdd0/View/FullText.html?originationContext=typeAhead&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f5df80044c911e599358612e0bf9496/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170707653#co_pp_sp_7903_1147

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id26cd2c9560611d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170801504#co_pp_sp_345_729

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id26cd2c9560611d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231170801504#co_pp_sp_345_729

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171036238

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171036238

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Idadcb3a54f9311e2a531ef6793d44951/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171102353#co_pp_sp_4637_689%20n.4


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I62bef3fbfd2d11ddb5cbad29a280d47c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171127273#co_pp_sp_506_1181


4846-2225-7326 57

Long ago, Judge Learned Hand observed that “[u]pon any work … a great

number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more

of the incident is left out,” such that there reaches “a point in this series of

abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the [author] could

prevent the use of his ideas … apart from their expression.” Nichols, 45 F.2d at

121. Were generalized plot sequences protectable, as Dutcher urges here, this

Court could easily find that Star Wars infringes on The Wizard of Oz because in

both films:

• the main character lives with an aunt and uncle in a rural environment;

• the main character journeys on a quest far from home;

• both characters employ a method of air transportation that propels the character through the sky at a tremendous speed;

• the main character meets and is accompanied by a character made of metal;

• the character also meets and is accompanied by a character completely covered in hair;

• the main character must seek out a wise older man for help;

• the villain rules over a kingdom;

• the villain’s subjects are terrified of the villain;

• the villain dresses completely in black;

• the villain wears memorable and distinctive headgear;




4846-2225-7326 58

• the quest requires the team of heroes to infiltrate the villain’s stronghold;

• the main character eventually meets a wise old man who provides good advice;

• the team of heroes work together to dispatch the villain in the climax; and

• the main characters are decorated as heroes in a ceremony at the end.

Of course, Star Wars is not substantially similar to The Wizard of Oz any

more than Nightcrawler is substantially similar to Falling. The district court

correctly rejected Dutcher’s attempt to claim a monopoly on sequences of events

that naturally flow out of a work about a stringer protagonist.

II. The District Court’s Decision Can Be Affirmed on the Alternative Ground of No Copying as a Factual Matter Because There is No Evidence of Access and the Films Are Not Strikingly Similar.

In addition to the distinct lack of substantial similarity, the district court’s

decision can be affirmed on the alternative ground that there is no competent

evidence Dan Gilroy copied Falling.

As noted above, the first component of a copyright infringement claim is

that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s work ‘as a factual matter.’” Blehm, 702

F.3d at 1199. In the absence of direct proof of copying, which Dutcher never

offered, a plaintiff can indirectly prove copying in one of two ways: (1) by

providing sufficiently specific proof that the defendant “had access to the




4846-2225-7326 59

copyrighted work,” Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1284; or (2) by showing that the two

works are so “strikingly similar” that access is legally inferred. La Resolana, 555

F.3d at 1179. Dutcher’s claim fails on both counts.

A. There is No Non-Speculative Evidence of Access.

In order to establish access, a plaintiff must show the defendant had a

reasonable opportunity to view or copy the allegedly infringed work. La Resolana,

555 F.3d at 1178. “‘Access may not be inferred through mere speculation or

conjecture.’” Id. (citation omitted). “‘[E]vidence that only creates a bare

possibility that the defendant had access is not sufficient.’” Id. (quoting Mag

Jewelry Co. v. Cherokee, Inc., 496 F.3d 108, 117 (1st Cir. 2007)); see also Gal v.

Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

A plaintiff may establish proof of access either by showing that the infringed

work has been widely published (which is not true of Falling) or “access through

third parties connected to both a plaintiff and a defendant.” Hofmann v. Pressman

Toy Corp., 790 F. Supp. 498, 506 (D. N.J. 1990). To prove access through third

parties, a plaintiff “must offer significant, affirmative, and probative evidence” of

access. Gal, 518 F. Supp. 2d at 538 (citation omitted). Again, speculation does

not suffice—particularly where, like here, Mr. Gilroy has testified unequivocally

that he never heard of Dutcher or his work prior to this lawsuit. [Appx.Vol.III:540;

Supp.Appx.Vol.I:155.] “Courts have rejected efforts by plaintiffs to establish









https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2b2d2b2145e511dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=496+f3d+108

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2b2d2b2145e511dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=496+f3d+108

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I09763f1866cf11dcbd4c839f532b53c5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171413083#co_pp_sp_4637_538


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I6e87c7f455ee11d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231171443857#co_pp_sp_345_506



4846-2225-7326 60

access in the face of such sworn testimony unless there is probative evidence to the

contrary.” Id. at 539.

Where a plaintiff seeks to establish access through a chain of intermediaries,

he must establish a sufficiently strong nexus between the defendant and the

intermediary to raise a reasonable possibility of access. See Meta-Film Assocs.,

Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346, 1355 (C.D. Cal. 1984). In order to show this

“close relationship linking the intermediary and the alleged copier,” id. at 1357, the

two must occupy positions where it would be natural for information possessed by

one to be imparted to the other, such as where an intermediary is “in a position to

provide suggestions or comments with respect to the defendant’s work.” Id. At

minimum, “the dealings between the plaintiff and the intermediary and between

the intermediary and the alleged copier must involve some overlap in subject

matter to permit an inference of access.” Id. at 1358. A speculative “chain of

hypothetical transmittals” is insufficient. Id. at 1355.20

20 See also Bernal, 788 F. Supp. 2d at 1054 (rejecting claims of access regarding Desperate Housewives because plaintiff raised only a “theoretical possibility” that “amount[ed] to nothing more than pure speculation”); Meta-Film, 586 F. Supp. at 1356-58 (plaintiff who submitted her work to a director with connection to executive involved in Animal House failed to establish access where the executive did not make any creative contributions to the film); Mowry, 2005 WL 1793773 at *5-7 (plaintiff who distributed his screenplay in the entertainment industry failed to establish access where he had no evidence that anyone who received his screenplay passed it on to creators of The Truman Show); Cox v. Abrams, No. 93 CIV 6899, 1997 WL 251532 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 1997) (plaintiffs failed to establish



https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I65f380b6557211d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173037447#co_pp_sp_345_1355






https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I76fb696d5ee311e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173247534#co_pp_sp_4637_1054



https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_5

https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_5

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1e515ce3566311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173345498#co_pp_sp_999_4

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I1e515ce3566311d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173345498#co_pp_sp_999_4

4846-2225-7326 61

Before the district court, Dutcher advanced nothing more than a speculative

chain of hypothetical transmittals of his obscure, unreleased film that bordered on

conspiracy theories. Every single witness in each alleged chain unequivocally

denied Dutcher’s accusations.

For example, Dutcher posited that acclaimed screenwriter Neil LaBute

might have passed a copy of Falling to Hollywood producer Steven Soderbergh,

who might have passed it to Tony Gilroy and/or Jennifer Fox, who might have

passed it to Dan Gilroy. But all of these individuals unequivocally deny having

seen Falling, much less having provided that work to Dan Gilroy.

[Supp.Appx.Vol.I:105, Vol.XIII:2345-2354, Vol.XIII:2313-2336.]

Dutcher also posited that Falling might have made its way to Dan Gilroy

through a chain of stringers who appeared on the reality series Stringers: LA, some

of whom consulted on Nightcrawler. Again, however, Dutcher adduced no

evidence that Falling changed hands with any of them. To the contrary, all four

testified under oath that they never saw or heard about Falling until after the

initiation of this lawsuit, and none met Mr. Gilroy or had anything to do with

Nightcrawler until after he had already completed his Nightcrawler script.

access where defendants all swore under oath that they never heard of the plaintiffs or her manuscript prior to creating Regarding Henry).


4846-2225-7326 62

[Supp.Appx.Vol.XIII:2311-2312, Vol.XIV:2395-2443; see also

Supp.Appx.Vol.XIII:2322-2323.]21

In the absence of any evidence suggesting that Dan Gilroy had a reasonable

opportunity to view or copy Falling, the only way for Dutcher to establish access is

to show that Falling and Nightcrawler are so strikingly similar that access should

be inferred—something he cannot do.

B. Nightcrawler and Falling are Not Strikingly Similar.

The striking similarity bar is exceptionally high. See Webb, 910 F. Supp. 2d

at 687. As this Court has explained, “[s]triking similarity exists when ‘the proof of

similarity in appearance is so striking’” and inexplicable that even the

“‘possibilities of independent creation, coincidence and prior common source are,

as a practical matter, precluded.’” La Resolana, 555 F.3d at 1179 (citation

omitted) (emphasis added).

When evaluating whether two works are strikingly similar, this Court has

made clear that one must compare the two works as a whole. See, e.g., Gates

Rubber, 9 F.3d at 833 n.7; La Resolana, 555 F.3d at 1179. Unlike a substantial

similarity analysis, “[t]o show striking similarity, the works ‘must be so identical

21 Dutcher’s reliance on a third expert, Gerald McMenamin, for the proposition that some unknown person other than Dan Gilroy wrote the Nightcrawler screenplay is similarly unavailing because even if it were true (which it is not), Dutcher has come forward with no evidence that such unknown, unidentified person had access to Falling.


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Idadcb3a54f9311e2a531ef6793d44951/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173424735#co_pp_sp_4637_687






4846-2225-7326 63

as to preclude any reasonable possibility of independent creation.’ Mere multiple

similarities are insufficient and the relevance of a similarity is diminished if the

similarity consists of … otherwise non-protectable elements.” Webb, 910 F. Supp.

2d at 687 (citation omitted).

Consequently, the question is not whether two works are sufficiently similar

that some reasonable juror might conclude any similarities were the result of

copying. To establish striking similarity, Dutcher must prove that no reasonable

juror could conclude that any similarities between Nightcrawler and Falling were

the result of independent creation, prior common source, or coincidence. See La

Resolana, 555 F.3d at 1180.

Given this extraordinarily high threshold, it is not surprising that courts have

found striking similarity in very “few instances,” particularly when addressing

literary and film works, and only where the works at issue are “identical” to the

plaintiff’s work “in virtually every detail.” Hofmann, 790 F. Supp. at 509.22

Here, Dutcher cannot show that no reasonable juror could conclude that any

similarities between Falling and Nightcrawler possibly resulted from independent

creation, prior common source, or coincidence for at least three reasons.

22 See, e.g., Webb, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 683-89; Mowry, 2005 WL 1793773, at *5-12; Gal, 518 F. Supp. 2d at 538-44.








https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I89958aa3007a11da83e7e9deff98dc6f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231173952350#co_pp_sp_999_5


4846-2225-7326 64

First, there is overwhelming evidence (most of which predates Falling) that

Mr. Gilroy independently created Nightcrawler. It is enshrined in thousands of

pages of date-verified documents stretching back more than three decades.

Second, stories about stringers are not new. The profession has inspired

numerous other works, all of which share similarities with Nightcrawler and

Falling. This includes Stringer, a film released almost a decade before Dutcher’s

film and which is so comparable to Falling that it shares more than thirty

similarities—from protagonists with significant others who share aspirations of

making it big in the Hollywood entertainment industry, to scenes in which the

protagonists assault their love interests, to scenes in which both protagonists record

a dying man taking his last breaths without offering aid to the victim.23

Finally, a reasonable jury could conclude any similarities between the two

films might be the result of coincidence. When two works address the same subject

matter, it is not surprising that they might share certain similarities. The near

uncanny similarity between Stringer and Falling evidences as much.

It was Dutcher’s burden to establish striking similarity by proving that no

reasonable juror could conclude Mr. Gilroy independently created Nightcrawler, or

that any similarities with Falling are the result of independent creation, prior

23 A graphical side-by-side comparison of the numerous similarities shared by Falling and Stringer is available at Appx.Vol.III:461-70.


4846-2225-7326 65

common sources or coincidence. The uncontroverted record evidence makes that

an impossible burden.

III. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Dutcher’s Motion to Compel.

Dutcher’s brief ends with a cursory argument that the district court should

have granted his motion to compel documents regarding compensation paid to

Defendants’ expert Robert Gale. Dutcher barely develops this argument, fails to

provide any context for it from the record, cites no evidence regarding Gale’s

alleged “extensive relationship with NBCUniversal,” [Br. at 65], and offers no

explanation for why the order played any role in the district court’s summary

judgment ruling (it did not). The argument is therefore inadequately briefed, and

this Court should disregard it.

Should it choose to examine the argument on the merits, this Court “will

reverse a district court only if it ‘exceeded the bounds of permissible choice,’”

which means “its ‘decision is either based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or

an erroneous conclusion of law or manifest a clear error of judgment.’” Regan-

Touhy, 526 F.3d at 647 (citations omitted). As the district court’s order explains,

Dutcher’s motion sought to compel documents regarding agreements that do not

exist, and “the court cannot order Defendants to produce documents that do not

exist.” [Add. 13.] That conclusion was not an abuse of discretion.


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231174524447#co_pp_sp_506_647

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I02e40032268711ddb595a478de34cd72/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231174524447#co_pp_sp_506_647

4846-2225-7326 66

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the district court’s decision should be

affirmed. Defendants request costs on appeal.

ORAL ARGUMENT

Defendants respectfully request oral argument because counsel believes that

oral argument will materially assist this Court in resolving the issues presented on

appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of January 2020.

PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. /s/ Jeffrey J. Hunt

Jeffrey J. Hunt David C. Reymann Cheylynn Hayman Stephen C. Mouritsen Jeremy M. Brodis Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees


4846-2225-7326 67

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 12,959 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in a 14-point Times New Roman font.

DATED this 6th day of January 2020.


Jeffrey J. Hunt Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NDDB282A0B97711D8983DF34406B5929B/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&__lrTS=20191231174552939






4846-2225-7326 68

ECF CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that: 1. All required privacy redactions have been made.

2. If a hard copy of the foregoing document has also been submitted, such hard copy is an exact copy of the ECF submission.

3. The electronic submission has been scanned for viruses with Endpoint Protection version 9.0.26.61, and it is free of viruses. DATED this 6th day of January 2020.




4846-2225-7326 69

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 6th day of January 2020, I filed the

foregoing BRIEF OF APPELLEES via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which

served the following:

Perry S. Clegg ([email protected]) KUNZLER LAW GROUP 50 West Broadway, 10th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 ([email protected]) Stephen Silverman ([email protected]) STEPHEN SILVERMAN LAW 9304 East Raintree Drive, Suite 120 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

/s/ Jeffrey J. Hunt





order v. bold films lp, bold film productions, llc, …...bold films lp, bold film productions, llc,...

Documents