Roadrunner JMTC v. Warner Bros. Television

California state court denies production company’s anti-SLAPP motion in suit accusing it of contract violations related to television series The Pitt, finding plaintiff made prima facie showing medical drama derives from hit television show ER and is subject to “frozen rights” copyright clause between parties.

In 1974, author and screenwriter Michael Crichton wrote a screenplay titled Emergency Ward, which was eventually adapted into the hit medical drama ER. Crichton assigned the copyright in his screenplay to Warner Bros. in 1994. Crichton and Warner Bros. included a “frozen rights” provision, which stated that “any and all sequels, remakes, spin-offs and/or other derivative works … shall be frozen, with mutual agreement between Crichton and Warner Bros. being necessary in order to move forward in any of these categories.” 

Crichton passed away in 2008. His widow, Sherri, received a call in 2022 from a representative of Warner Bros. regarding a planned reboot of ER. Various conversations and negotiations ensued over many months, including with Noah Wylie (who starred in ER as Dr. John Carter, a character Crichton based on himself) and John Wells (the ER showrunner) through the defendant John Wells Productions (JWP). After Sherri and representatives of Crichton’s estate stated they would seek to enforce the frozen rights provision of the 1994 agreement requiring a “created by” credit to Crichton, Warner Bros. indicated the reboot would not go forward. In March 2024, Warner Bros. announced its new television series, The Pitt, which it described as “a realistic examination of the challenges facing healthcare workers in todays’ America as seen through the lens of the frontline heroes working in a modern-day hospital.”

On Aug. 27, 2024, Roadrunner JMTC, the successor-in-interest to Crichton’s estate, filed suit against Warner Bros. Television, its affiliates and certain individuals involved in the production of ER and The Pitt alleging that defendants breached the 1994 agreement by creating a television show that “plainly derives” from ER. The complaint alleged “the structure, plot, themes, setting, pace, characters and sequence of events of the pilot screenplay for The Pitt all mirror Crichton’s original screenplay for the 1994 pilot episode of ER.” In sum, “[i]t is ER complete with the same executive producer, writer, star, production companies, studio and network as the planned ER reboot.” Roadrunner JMTC also asserted claims of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional interference with contractual relations.

In response, defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, arguing that The Pitt arose from the defendants’ constitutional free speech rights in connection with a public issue—namely, the problems plaguing the United States medical system since the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendants further argued that Roadrunner JMTC did not state a cause of action or produce sufficient evidence to establish a probability it will prevail on its claims, on the grounds that The Pitt is not a “derivative work” of ER under the terms of the 1994 agreement.

The Los Angeles Superior Court denied defendants’ motion in a minute order. It first ruled defendants established that Roadrunner JMTC’s claims are premised on the creation of a television show, which is a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech. Consequently, the burden shifted to Roadrunner JMTC to establish a probability of succeeding on the merits of its claims, all of which “rely on the issue of whether The Pitt is a derivative work or otherwise infringes the copyright of ER.” Pointing to the timeline of the planned ER reboot, including failed negotiations between the parties followed by the creation of The Pitt, the court concluded Roadrunner JMTC met its burden to demonstrate that its claims have at least “minimal merit.” The court also cited a declaration by the drafter of the 1994 agreement as sufficient to challenge the defendants’ interpretation of the contractual definition of “derivative works.” Finally, the court held that it could not determine at this early stage of the litigation the key question of whether The Pitt was a derivative work of ER.

Summary prepared by Melanie Howard and Chloe Gordils