Gold Glove Productions, LLC v. Don Handfield , 648 F. App'x 679 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    APR 18 2016
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GOLD GLOVE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a                   No. 14-55797
    California Limited Liability Company and
    RYAN A. BROOKS, an individual,                   D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07247-DSF-RZ
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    DON HANDFIELD, an individual; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 7, 2016
    Pasadena, California
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Ryan A. Brooks and his company, Gold Glove Productions, LLC, appeal the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants in their action under the
    Copyright Act against Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., and other defendants.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Brooks and Gold Glove allege that the motion picture Trouble with the Curve,
    which depicts a father-daughter baseball story, infringed their registered copyright
    in the screenplay Omaha. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we
    review the district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo. Benay v. Warner
    Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 
    607 F.3d 620
    , 624 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
    To prevail on a copyright claim, a plaintiff must show “‘(1) ownership of a
    valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are
    original.’” Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 
    462 F.3d 1072
    , 1076
    (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 
    499 U.S. 340
    ,
    361 (1991)). Copying may be established by a showing that the defendant had
    access to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are substantially similar.
    Benay, 
    607 F.3d at 624
    . To establish substantial similarity, the plaintiff must
    satisfy both the extrinsic test and the intrinsic test. 
    Id.
     The extrinsic test is an
    objective comparison of specific expressive elements, and the intrinsic test is a
    subjective comparison that focuses on whether an ordinary, reasonable audience
    would find the works substantially similar in total concept and feel. 
    Id.
     A plaintiff
    who fails the extrinsic test cannot survive summary judgment. 
    Id.
    The district court correctly applied the extrinsic test, focusing on
    “‘articulable similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace,
    2
    characters, and sequence of events in the two works.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting Kouf v. Walt
    Disney Pictures & Television, 
    16 F.3d 1042
    , 1045 (9th Cir. 1994)). First, the plots
    and sequences of events of the two works are quite different. The general plot idea
    of a father-daughter baseball story is not protectable as a matter of copyright law.
    See Metcalf v. Bochco, 
    294 F.3d 1069
    , 1074 (9th Cir. 2002). Just as importantly,
    the two stories are different in numerous and essential respects.
    In analyzing plot and sequence of events, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in discounting the expert opinions. See Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 
    330 F.3d 1170
    , 1180 (9th Cir. 2003). A lay person can easily see that the two stories,
    although dealing with the same general subject matter, are quite different.
    The shared themes of Omaha and Trouble with the Curve—father-daughter
    reconciliation, the breaking down of emotional barriers, the importance of family,
    and pitting old school ways against new ones—are commonplace in father-
    daughter stories and in sports movies. See Benay, 
    607 F.3d at 627
    . The themes are
    not original, protectable elements of the two works. They are scènes-à-faire. See
    Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 
    297 F.3d 815
    , 823 (9th Cir. 2002).
    Finally, the setting, mood, and pace of Omaha and Trouble with the Curve
    are obviously different, as is the dialogue. See Benay, 
    607 F.3d at 628
    ; Kouf, 
    16 F.3d at 1046
    .
    3
    We affirm the district court’s conclusion that, under the extrinsic test, the
    works were not substantially similar. See Benay, 
    607 F.3d at 624
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    4