Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company

Background

David Louis Whitehead, who was representing himself, sued The Walt Disney Co., Hulu LLC, and National Geographic Partners, LLC. He alleges that he pitched a film project about Aretha Franklin to Hulu in July 2017 and that the defendants later released a television film titled “Genius Aretha,” allegedly infringing his copyrighted works “My Aretha,” “Aretha,” and “Aretha II.” The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, but that motion was not decided in this order.

The court had not held the initial case-management conference or required the parties to meet under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). No discovery schedule had been established. Judge Willis addressed the pretrial motions that fell within her referral, including motions concerning discovery, sanctions, a special master, a sur-reply, a stay of other non-dispositive motions, and amendment of the complaint.

Discovery Motions

Whitehead sought to compel the defendants to produce shooting scripts and videos for “Genius Aretha” and to disclose the amount of money the defendants grossed from producing and distributing it. The defendants argued that discovery could not generally begin before the Rule 26(f) conference and noted that the video was publicly available.

The court held that none of the exceptions allowing discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference applied. Because no conference or discovery schedule existed, the court DENIED Whitehead’s motions to compel discovery. The court stated that these motions, and any further motions to compel, would not become ready for decision until discovery began and a party refused to provide discovery without sufficient reason.

Motion to Appoint a Special Master

Whitehead asked the court to appoint a special master to conduct an investigation concerning an alleged “RICO Conspiracy and Fraud.” The request concerned the defendants’ production of “Genius Aretha” and another film that the court described as unrelated to this matter. The court found that Whitehead had not explained what the special master would investigate or why a special master was needed. It also found no pretrial matter that could not be handled effectively and promptly by the court.

The court therefore DENIED Whitehead’s motion to appoint a special master. The court also noted that Judge Garnett had previously denied a request for a special master related to earlier injunctive relief.

Defendants’ Request Concerning Whitehead’s Affidavits

The defendants sought permission either to file a motion to strike two affidavits submitted by Whitehead or to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional response after the ordinary briefing. The defendants argued that the affidavits improperly added facts and arguments concerning similarities between Whitehead’s works and the defendants’ work.

The court said that Whitehead had not sought permission to file the affidavits but that the affidavits concerned the merits of the case, which the court intended to address when deciding the motion to dismiss. The court therefore DENIED in part and GRANTED in part the defendants’ request: it denied permission to file a motion to strike but granted permission to file a sur-reply. The sur-reply could not exceed 10 pages and was due 14 days after the order. Whitehead was not permitted to respond to it.

Sanctions Motions

Whitehead filed three motions for sanctions concerning an alleged misrepresentation about Comcast Corporation’s ownership interest in Hulu and whether the defendants’ counsel represented Comcast. The defendants’ counsel stated that counsel did not represent Comcast in the matter. The defendants later filed an amended corporate disclosure stating that Hulu LLC was 33 percent owned by Comcast Hulu Holdings, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Comcast Corporation.

The court found that, even if Comcast’s 33 percent interest had not initially been disclosed, the defendants’ counsel did not represent Comcast in the case. The court therefore found no misrepresentation and DENIED Whitehead’s third sanctions motion. The court also DENIED Whitehead’s fourth sanctions motion, which claimed that the defendants’ request for permission to file a sur-reply was itself an improper sur-reply. The court held that the defendants’ filing was a request for permission, not a sur-reply, and did not warrant sanctions. The order refers collectively to Whitehead’s motions for sanctions as DENIED.

Stay of Non-dispositive Motions

The defendants asked the court to hold Whitehead’s non-dispositive motions and other requests in abeyance, meaning to pause them, until the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that Whitehead would not be prejudiced by waiting and that addressing the motions before the dismissal decision could waste time if the case were dismissed.

Whitehead argued that the motions were important to establish facts opposing dismissal and that he should be allowed to fully present his case before the court ruled. The court concluded that many of the motions did not concern the dismissal motion, that Whitehead would not be prejudiced by waiting, and that many motions were not yet ready for judicial action.

The court therefore GRANTED the defendants’ motion to hold non-dispositive motions and other requests in abeyance. The court stated that non-dispositive filings within its jurisdiction made after the order would be denied and that defendants would not need to respond to them. The court could separately rule on filings submitted or mailed by that date but not yet entered on the docket. The court noted that it could not preclude filings on matters assigned to Judge Garnett.

Motion to Amend the Complaint

Whitehead sought permission to amend his complaint. He cited family deaths, the need to care for a sick relative, and eye surgery as circumstances that prevented him from amending earlier. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that it was untimely and did not satisfy the standards for reconsideration, Rule 16, or Rule 15. They also noted that Whitehead had not submitted a proposed amended complaint and had continued filing other documents.

The court acknowledged the hardships Whitehead described but concluded that he had received multiple extensions and waited until nearly three months after the last stated deadline to seek permission to amend. The court also observed that many proposed amendments concerned different films. It therefore DENIED Whitehead’s motion to amend as untimely.

The court stated that, if it later recommended dismissal, it would separately consider whether Whitehead should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies identified in a judicial opinion. That later consideration would not allow completely unrelated claims.

Disposition

The order states that:

- Whitehead’s motions to compel discovery were DENIED. - Whitehead’s motion to appoint a special master was DENIED. - The defendants’ request for permission to file a motion to strike or a sur-reply was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; the defendants were allowed to file a sur-reply due 14 days after the order. - Whitehead’s motions for sanctions were DENIED. - The defendants’ motion to hold non-dispositive motions in abeyance was GRANTED. - Whitehead’s motion to amend his complaint was DENIED.

The Clerk was asked to close several docket entries. This order did not rule on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss or decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred.