Kozinski Contends Due Process Rights at Stake in Copyright Case Against 'Shape of Water' Filmmakers
Nearly two years after abruptly retiring amid sexual harassment allegations, the former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit returned to the court to argue on behalf of the son of a playwright who claims the filmmakers ripped off copyrighted elements of his father's work.
December 09, 2019 at 03:06 PM
5 minute read
Making his return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit nearly two years after abruptly retiring from the bench amid sexual harassment allegations, Alex Kozinski on Monday urged a Ninth Circuit panel to revive a copyright lawsuit against the filmmakers behind the Academy Award-winning movie "The Shape of Water."
Kozinski contended that his client, the son of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Paul Zindel who claims that the film and its novelization infringe copyrighted elements of his father's play "Let Me Hear You Whisper," didn't get a fair shake from a district court judge. U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson dismissed the case last year on a motion to dismiss without taking any evidence or holding oral argument.
"A plaintiff, as a matter of due process, should be able to put in evidence," Kozinski said early in his argument.
Kozinski, who resigned in December 2017 after a string of female law clerks and, in one instance, a former judicial colleague from his prior stint on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, accused him of sexual misconduct and harassment, opened his 15 minutes of allotted time by saying, "Good morning, may it please the court."
Judge Kim Wardlaw, the only one of the three panel judges who served on the bench alongside Kozinski, responded "good morning" from her center seat on the bench presiding over the argument. She and the other two panel members—Judge Kenneth Lee, a recent appointee of President Donald Trump, and U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation—had probing questions for double sides, particularly aimed at when, if at all, it's appropriate for a judge to dismiss a copyright case involving expressive literary works so early in a case.
Kennelly, in particular, asked Kozinski what expert testimony would add in a case such as this one. If a judge can't do a comparison on the basis of the works in front of them, Kennelly said, that's "a nice way of saying all these cases have to go to trial."
Lee, who appeared the most skeptical of Kozinski's argument to revive the case, asked if the plaintiff could raise a claim to substantial similarity between the works just on the basis that they all involve a female janitor who tries to smuggle a creature out of a lab in a clothes hamper. (In Zindel's work, a play often performed in middle and high schools, a female janitor plots to save a dolphin from a medical testing facility. The film and novel involve a female janitor who plots to help an Amazonian river god, whom she falls in love with, escape a military testing lab.) Lee suggested the idea of having a lowly character form a connection with a magical creature was "a typical Hollywood cliche."
"In Hollywood, as in life, there's nothing new under the sun," Kozinski said. "None of us build from scratch. We all stand on the shoulders of others."
"The question is whether or not what they've done here is taken the essence of the heart of Paul Zindel's play," Kozinski said.
The most pointed questions for the defendants, Jonathan Zavin of Loeb & Loeb, representing the filmmakers, and Davis Wright Tremaine's Kelli Sager, representing MacMillan Publishers, came from Wardlaw, who called it a "kind of hubris" for a judge to think he or she has enough knowledge of filmmaking and theater to dismiss copying claims at such an early stage.
The circumstances that would warrant such a treatment are "very rare and I would say it should be limited to the most frivolous of cases," Wardlaw said.
Zavin, for his part, said that this was "not a close case." Zavin urged the panel not to establish a rule that would mean virtually all copyright claims regarding expressive works move on to summary judgment. "Expert testimony is not going to change any of the elements" potentially protected by copyright, Zavin said. "Every piece of expression is different, except there's a cleaning lady and an animal, which we acknowledge," Zavin said.
During his rebuttal time, Kozinski asked the panel, if they do revive the lawsuit, to assign it to someone other than Anderson, whom Kozinski noted was his classmate at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. "Please consider sending it back to a judge who has not made up his or her mind," Kozinski said.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute readRobert Downey Jr. Says He 'Intends to Sue' All Future Executives Who Use His AI Replica
3 minute readFormer Hallmark Casting Director Sues Network for Alleged Age Discrimination
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-60
- 2California Implements New Law Banning Medical Debt From Credit Reports
- 3Trump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers For Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
- 4Climate Groups Demonstrate Outside A&O Shearman and Akin Offices
- 5Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250