Court Opinion

ID: 9409886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 19:05:22.566227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.095084
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/19/23
                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                         DIVISION SEVEN

 ESPLANADE PRODUCTIONS,             B315859
 INC.,
                                    (Los Angeles County
         Plaintiff and Appellant,   Super. Ct. No. BC693809)

         v.

 THE WALT DISNEY
 COMPANY et al.,

          Defendants and
          Respondents.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Dalila C. Lyons and Kevin C. Brazile,
Judges. Affirmed.
     Drooz Legal and Deborah Drooz for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     O’Melveny & Myers, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Drew E. Breuder
and Craig P. Bloom for Defendants and Respondents.
                _______________________________
       Esplanade Productions, Inc. sued The Walt Disney
Company and affiliated entities (collectively Disney) for breach of
an implied-in-fact contract, breach of confidence and unfair
competition, alleging Disney had used the creative ideas of
Esplanade’s principal, Gary Goldman, in Disney’s animated
motion picture Zootopia without compensating Esplanade. The
trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of
Disney regarding the individual elements of the works and the
works as a whole, finding they were not substantially similar as a
matter of law. The court overruled Disney’s demurrer as to the
title “Zootopia.” Three years later the court granted the motion
for summary judgment filed by Disney, ruling there was no
evidence the creators of Disney’s Zootopia had access to
Goldman’s work and, even if there was evidence of access, any
inference of copying was rebutted by the undisputed evidence a
Disney employee had independently created the title “Zootopia.”
       On appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Disney,
Esplanade challenges the trial court’s demurrer ruling and the
grant of summary judgment. We affirm both rulings based on
lack of access.1

1     Because Esplanade would have been required to prove
access to succeed on the claims dismissed after the demurrer
ruling, any error in the sustaining of the demurrer was
necessarily harmless. Accordingly, we do not address the
demurrer ruling on the merits. (See Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre
Internat., Inc. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 13, 23 [any error in order
sustaining demurrer to cause of action was harmless where court
correctly granted summary adjudication on claims with
overlapping elements as claim dismissed on demurrer].)

                                 2
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      1. Goldman’s Treatment
      Goldman is a screenwriter who has written and produced
several major motion pictures. In 1984 Goldman incorporated
Esplanade to be the entity through which he would provide
writing and producing services. Goldman has at all times been
the director and sole shareholder of Esplanade.
      In 2000 Goldman began developing an idea for a mixed
live-action/animated movie called “Looney.” Goldman wrote a
“treatment” for the predominantly live-action portion of the film
and registered the treatment with the Writer’s Guild of America,
West, Inc. in August 2000. The treatment consists of an eight-
page summary, which tells the story of Zeke, a genius cartoonist,
who is the writer, director, producer and (almost sole) voice-actor
of an animated television show called “Zootopia” that has become
a “worldwide sensation.” The show is the “unique expression of
[Zeke’s] character,” and he regularly holds conversations in the
voices of his characters, even responding to one character voice
with the voice of another character. Over the course of his career
Zeke has gone from being “a nice, sweet, sensitive guy to being
universally known as one of the biggest egomaniacs in
Hollywood.”
      The action of the film begins with Zeke going through his
morning routine, which establishes his enormous wealth,
decadent lifestyle and tyrannical behavior. When he arrives at
work, the viewer first sees the animated show, Zootopia. The
Looney treatment describes Zootopia as, “Backstage at the zoo.
Every morning, the animals punch in and go to work. At closing
time, they punch out and go home. It’s a metaphor for life and for
America.” The treatment lists nine animal characters: seven

                                 3
teenagers (hyena, aardvark, sloth, koala, bear, cheetah, squirrel)
and two adults (ibex and ostrich), as well as a human zookeeper.
After that brief description of the show Zootopia, the Looney
treatment continues describing the live-action plot. Zeke and his
creative partner (and only friend), Robin, are visited by their
hometown bully, whom Zeke proceeds to humiliate. Zeke is then
called to a meeting with a studio executive who asks Zeke to
endorse a product Zeke believes is harmful. Zeke refuses. Later
that day Zeke publicly mocks the studio executive on a popular
talk show. Zeke is fired the next day.
       Thus begins Zeke’s downfall. He learns he is broke; his
wife leaves him; his so-called friends abandon him; he cannot get
work; he fights with Robin, loses his house, gets arrested and, left
with no alternative, returns home to his parents’ house in
Kansas. Throughout his hardships Zeke is haunted by his
animated characters, who follow him like an entourage that only
he can see. As his mental state devolves, Robin visits Kansas
with her new fiancé, the childhood bully. Zeke realizes he is in
love with Robin, but she rejects him. Zeke is ultimately
committed to a psychiatric facility where he recognizes that his
“characters are all him. And he has to master them, integrate
them.” Zeke returns to Hollywood, again professes his love to
Robin; and, after some dramatic tension and uncertainty, she
leaves the bully at the altar to be with Zeke.
       In addition to the Looney treatment Goldman prepared a
six-page description of the animated characters who populated
the Zootopia show-within-the-film. The five main characters are
a koala, hyena, aardvark, sloth and squirrel; all between the ages
of 14 and 17. The koala is the leader of the group. He “looks
cute, but he’s . . . consumed with unbridled ambition.” He

                                 4
concocts “wild schemes” to challenge the bear for leadership of
the animals and to win the affections of the attractive cheetah.
The hyena is described as “[a] prankster. A jolly guy, out for a
good time.” He is an outcast “totally without hope of ever
changing that situation or living a normal life.” He “revels in
being offensive” and “takes pride in his obnoxious behavior.” The
hyena also has a “volcanic libido” but has “no hope of fulfilling it
with an actual female.” The third member of the clique is the
aardvark, a “strong, athletic, but dorky guy who is obsessed with
self-improvement.” He believes “an animal can be whatever he
wants to be” and “[t]here is no such thing as ‘animal nature.’ ‘If
you want to be an elephant, you can be an elephant.’” The sloth
is a “highly educated and cultured epicure who is monumentally
lazy.” He “has no hope that he can change or improve; or that
anyone else can change or improve.” The final main character is
the only wild animal on the show: the squirrel, who can enter
and exit the zoo as she pleases. She is “cute, curvaceous, sexy,”
self-sufficient and “the voice of common-sense.” But no matter
what advice she gives based on her knowledge of the outside
world, the zoo animals “laugh her off as being absurd.” The
squirrel is romantic and “could almost fall for” any of the males;
but they “treasure her as a friend, just not as a lover.”
       The show’s supporting characters are the bear, cheetah,
ibex and ostrich. The bear is a football player who takes his
leadership for granted. The cheetah is a “[g]orgeous sex goddess
cheerleader” who constantly tries to make the bear jealous. The
ibex is an adult character who runs a bar frequented by the
characters and is married to the other adult character, the
ostrich. The ostrich is “very prissy and vain, but not too
attractive.”

                                 5
      Goldman envisioned the Looney film as being the first
installment of a franchise that introduced his Zootopia
characters. He then hoped to write and produce an animated
spin-off starring the Zootopia characters.
      2. Goldman’s Looney/Zootopia Pitch
      In 2009 Goldman was developing a live-action film with
Brigham Taylor, who at the time was a production and
development executive with Walt Disney Pictures. According to
Goldman, after one of their meetings regarding the live-action
project, Goldman told Taylor about Looney/Zootopia and gave
Taylor copies of the Looney treatment, Zootopia character
descriptions, copies of animated character drawings Goldman
had commissioned, a two-page synopsis of the Looney plot and
two one-page “teasers” even more briefly summarizing the plot of
Looney (collectively the “pitch materials”). Goldman alleges
Taylor agreed to show the pitch materials to Disney’s animation
department. Subsequently Taylor informed Goldman that
Disney’s animation department was not interested in the
Looney/Zootopia story.
      3. Disney’s Zootopia (Spoiler Alert)
      At some point after 2009 Disney began developing an
animated film about a civilization comprised entirely of
anthropomorphic animals who had evolved beyond being
predator and prey and instead coexisted (mostly) peacefully in a
modern world. The project went through several iterations,
beginning as a spy movie set on an island with a fox protagonist
and ultimately becoming a buddy-cop movie with a rabbit as the
main protagonist and the fox as her reluctant partner. The
movie was released in 2016 and earned more than $1 billion in
box office revenue.

                                6
      The plot of Disney’s Zootopia centers on a young rabbit
named Judy from the agricultural suburb of Bunnyburrow. In
the prologue the viewer sees Judy as a child in a school play. She
explains to the audience that animals have “moved beyond our
primitive savage ways” and “predator and prey live in harmony.”
Judy says she wants to be a police officer when she grows up,
despite her concerned parents’ reminder that, “There’s never
been a bunny cop.” It’s not clear whether Judy registers her
parents’ apprehension because she scampers off to defend her
friends against a bully (who happens to be a fox). The bully tells
Judy that she will never be anything more than “just a stupid,
carrot farming dumb bunny.”
      The movie then jumps ahead to show a young-adult Judy
completing and graduating from the police academy. She is
assigned to work in the “big city” of Zootopia. As she boards the
train to Zootopia, Judy’s parents again express concern about the
predators in the city, particularly the foxes. They attempt to give
her fox deterrent, fox repellent and a fox taser. She placatingly
accepts the fox repellent and jumps onto the train.
      When she reports to the police station for her first day, a
cheetah officer marvels at the “cute” bunny cop. Judy politely
explains that “a bunny can call another bunny ‘cute’ but when
other animals do it, it’s a little . . . .” The cheetah understands
and interrupts to apologize for “stereotyping” her. At the
morning briefing Judy learns 14 mammals, all predators, have
recently gone missing. But instead of being assigned to those
cases, Judy, much to her chagrin, is tasked with parking
enforcement.
      While enthusiastically writing parking tickets Judy sees a
fox, who we later learn is named Nick, go into an ice cream parlor

                                 7
in which the employees and patrons are all elephants.
Suspicious, she follows. Judy enters just as the proprietor
refuses to serve Nick, asking, “There aren’t any fox ice cream
joints in your part of town?” Judy begins to reach for her fox
repellent when she notices Nick is with his toddler son who is
wearing an elephant costume. Nick explains his son wants to be
an elephant when he grows up. Judy intervenes and convinces
the elephant to serve Nick. When Nick realizes he has forgotten
his wallet, Judy buys a “jumbo pop” for the child. As they part
ways, Judy tells the child, “[Y]ou want to be an elephant when
you grow up, you be an elephant—because this is Zootopia,
anyone can be anything.”
       Later that afternoon, Judy sees Nick and his son melting
the jumbo pop in the sun. She watches as they re-freeze the
liquid into smaller popsicles, sell them to lemmings, salvage the
used popsicle sticks and sell the sticks to a rodent construction
site. Judy also discovers Nick’s “son” is in fact an adult fennec
fox. Judy confronts Nick, who mischievously explains he has not
broken any laws and tells her, “[E]veryone comes to Zootopia
thinking they can be anything they want. Well you can’t. You
can only be what you are. (Points to himself) Sly fox. (Points to
her) Dumb bunny.”
       The next day Judy convinces the police chief to let her work
on one of the missing mammal cases. He gives her 48 hours to
solve the case, or she must resign. Looking at a surveillance
photograph Judy realizes Nick was nearby where the missing
mammal (an otter) was last seen. She finds Nick and blackmails
him into helping her find the otter. Begrudgingly, Nick agrees.
       Together, Judy and Nick follow a series of leads and have
several adventures, ultimately leading them to an abandoned

                                 8
asylum where they find all of the missing mammals being held in
cells. The animals all appear violent as though they have become
feral and savage. Judy and Nick hear voices and hide. The
mayor of Zootopia (a lion) and a doctor (a badger) enter. The
mayor is angry that the doctor has not discovered why the
captured animals have “gone off the rails crazy.” The doctor
observes that only predators have been affected and perhaps it is
due to their “biology.”
       Judy and Nick apprehend the mayor, and Judy is
celebrated for her efforts. During a press conference, when asked
what caused the animals to “go savage,” Judy struggles to
answer. She repeats what she overheard the doctor say, that it
may have something to do with their biology as predators. Nick,
upset and offended by Judy’s comments, tells her he thought she
believed he was more than a savage predator. A montage shows
tensions rising between predator and prey in Zootopia. Feeling
guilty, Judy resigns from the police force and returns to
Bunnyburrow.
       While with her family, Judy realizes there is a plant that
causes animals to act savagely, and she surmises the savage
predators have been drugged. She races back to Zootopia to find
Nick and apologize. Now reconciled, Judy and Nick discover that
the assistant mayor, a sheep, has been surreptitiously drugging
predators to sow discord so that prey animals can have more
power. Judy and Nick work together to capture the assistant
mayor; the savage animals are cured; Judy gets her job back;
Nick joins the police force as the first fox police officer; and
predators and prey once again live in harmony in Zootopia.

                                9
      4. Esplanade’s Complaint
       In March 2017 Esplanade sued Disney in federal court
alleging federal copyright infringement as well as state law
claims. In November 2017 the district court granted Disney’s
motion to dismiss the federal claim and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which were
dismissed without prejudice. (See Esplanade Productions, Inc. v.
The Walt Disney Company (C.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2017, CV-17-02185-
MWF (JCx)) 2017 U.S.Dist. Lexis 217700.)2
       Esplanade filed the complaint in this action on
February 13, 2018, alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract,
breach of confidence and violation of California’s unfair
competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.),
naming as defendants The Walt Disney Company and a number
of its affiliates and subsidiaries.3 Esplanade alleged Disney had

2      The district court found that “Goldman’s work and Zootopia
are dissimilar in almost every material respect.” (Esplanade
Productions, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, supra, 2017
U.S.Dist. Lexis 217700 at p.*50.) For example, “Esplanade’s
effort to make the plots of Looney and [Disney’s] Zootopia seem
similar are strained” and, even if similar thematic elements could
be detected, they were “broad and well-worn” and not protectable
by federal copyright law. (Id. at pp.*29-30.) The dismissal was
affirmed on appeal. (See Esplanade Productions, Inc. v. The Walt
Disney Company (9th Cir. 2019) 768 Fed. Appx. 732.)
3     In addition to The Walt Disney Company, the complaint
named as defendants: Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Walt Disney
Pictures; ABC, Inc.; Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.;
Disney Consumer Products, Inc.; Disney Consumer Products and
Interactive Media, Inc.; Disney Book Group, LLC; Buena Vista

                                10
used Goldman’s work to develop Zootopia as evidenced by the
works’ similar titles; artwork; dialogue; themes; characters;
settings; plot and sequence of events; mood; and selection,
arrangement and combination of elements. For example, the
complaint alleged, “Disney adapted the small-town human
creator of [Goldman’s] Zootopia, who goes to the big city to fulfill
his wild ambition in the field of animation, into a cartoon
character, Judy, who goes to the big city with a similarly wild
ambition, to succeed as a cop.” The works also shared material
thematic elements, the complaint alleged, such as the idea “that
‘anyone can be anything,’ one can ‘define who you are,’ and one
can overcome the prejudices of other people and what they think
you ‘should be’ or what they believe you are capable of.”
Esplanade’s complaint also alleged similarities in the visual and
personality characteristics of the characters. For example,
according to Esplanade, Judy is visually similar to the drawing of
Goldman’s squirrel character and both are “at the bottom of
[Zootopia’s] status and power hierarchies.” Esplanade also
alleged Judy was similar to the Goldman’s aardvark because both
are “good natured, kindhearted, and constantly trying to
improve” themselves. Nick is compared physically to Goldman’s
hyena because both are “dog-like predators who appear sly,
cynical, and untrustworthy.” Nick’s personality is alleged to be
similar both to Goldman’s hyena and sloth because Nick has
resigned himself to being an outcast, is “uncouth” and is a
prankster who “takes pride in [his] obnoxious behavior.”

Books, Inc.; Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.; Disney Store USA,
LLC and Disney Shopping, Inc.

                                 11
      5. Disney’s Demurrer
       Disney demurred to the complaint, arguing Esplanade had
failed to allege facts showing Goldman’s work was substantially
similar to Disney’s Zootopia, as required to state a claim for all
three causes of action alleged. Disney reviewed the differences
between the works’ plot, sequence, visual depictions, character
traits, settings, dialogue, themes and mood, arguing that, even if
Esplanade could find high-level similarities between the works, it
was only because it had mischaracterized them.
       The trial court, having viewed the Zootopia movie and
reviewed Goldman’s pitch materials, agreed with Disney that the
material elements, other than the title “Zootopia,” were not
substantially similar.4 The court undertook a detailed analysis of
the works and found, while there were some similarities of
“general, common abstract themes” at “the highest level of
abstraction,” such similarities were not legally sufficient to
establish the “substantial similarity” required to infer Disney had
copied Goldman’s work. Accordingly, the court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to claims Disney had copied
Goldman’s work as a whole or its dialogue, plot, sequence,
artwork, character traits, settings, themes or mood. The court
overruled the demurrer as to whether Disney had copied the title
“Zootopia.”
       6. Disney’s Summary Judgment Motion
     Disney moved for summary judgment in December 2020. It
argued the undisputed evidence established the creators of

4     The trial court took judicial notice of the Zootopia movie
and the Goldman pitch materials in response to Disney’s
unopposed request.

                                 12
Disney’s Zootopia did not have access to Goldman’s pitch
materials and, therefore, could not have copied the title
“Zootopia.” Further, Disney argued, even if there had been
access, there was undisputed evidence the title “Zootopia” had
been independently created by Byron Howard, a director at Walt
Disney Animation Studios and the co-writer and co-director of
Disney’s Zootopia.
      In support of its motion Disney submitted a declaration
from Taylor and excerpts from his deposition. Taylor stated he
had no memory of Goldman telling him about Looney/Zootopia.
Even if Goldman had done so, Taylor never sent any materials to
Disney’s animation department on behalf of Goldman because
Taylor knew the animation department did not accept pitches
from nonemployees. Taylor also said he had never met Jared
Bush, the co-writer and co-director of Disney’s Zootopia. Taylor
had met Howard briefly at a publicity event in 2016, but he had
never worked with him. Taylor had no involvement in the
development or production of Disney’s Zootopia.
      Disney also submitted a declaration from Howard, as well
as excerpts from his deposition. Howard maintained he had
never worked with Taylor and had never seen Goldman’s pitch
materials until this lawsuit. He also stated Disney’s policy was
not to accept submissions from outside writers and he never
reviewed such unsolicited material. Howard explained that prior
to 2012 the title of the Zootopia project had been “Savage Seas”
and then “Savage City.” In 2012 an executive suggested they
change the name to better reflect the themes of the film, which
Howard described as bias, utopia, conflict between species and
natural enemies. Howard spent less then an hour brainstorming
potential new titles. One of the titles he came up with was

                               13
“Zootopia,” which he described as a combination of the words
“zoology” and “utopia.”
      In his deposition testimony and declaration Bush also
stated he had never met Taylor and had never seen the Goldman
pitch materials until this lawsuit. He corroborated Howard’s
explanation for how the title “Zootopia” came about. Disney also
submitted excerpts from the deposition of John Lasseter, a
former Disney executive. Lasseter similarly recalled Howard
creating the Zootopia title after another executive suggested they
rename the film. Finally, Disney submitted the declaration of
Jessica Julius, a vice-president of creative development at Walt
Disney Animation Studios. Julius explained that Disney
Animation maintains a database of all scripts, treatments and
pitch materials it receives. Entries in the database go back at
least 25 years. After this lawsuit commenced, Julius reviewed
the database and was unable to find any entries related to
Goldman’s Looney/Zootopia.
      In opposition to the summary judgment motion Esplanade
argued triable issues of material fact existed as to whether
Disney copied the title “Zootopia.” Regarding Disney’s alleged
access to Goldman’s pitch materials Esplanade submitted
Goldman’s declaration and deposition excerpts in which Goldman
recalled pitching Looney/Zootopia to Taylor in 2009 and Taylor
told Goldman he would submit the materials to the animation
department. Further, Esplanade argued there was a “reasonable
possibility” Taylor transmitted Goldman’s ideas to Lasseter
because Lasseter provided creative input on three live-action
projects on which Taylor was working during roughly 2009 to
2011. Alternatively, Taylor could have transmitted the pitch
materials to Disney executive Andrew Stanton, with whom

                                14
Taylor worked on a live-action film in that time frame. Stanton
then could have passed Goldman’s ideas to the Zootopia team
when he provided creative feedback to them in 2014. Finally,
Esplanade argued the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate
Howard had independently created the title “Zootopia” because
the evidence could be rationally disbelieved.
       The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
Disney, concluding the undisputed evidence showed no nexus
between Taylor and the creators of Disney’s Zootopia that could
support an inference Disney used Goldman’s work in creating the
title of the film. In addition, the court found the undisputed
evidence established Howard had independently created the title
“Zootopia.”
       The court entered judgment in favor of Disney on July 28,
2021. Esplanade filed a timely notice of appeal.
                         DISCUSSION
      1. Standard of Review
       A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only
when “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (c).) We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
(Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 338) and, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of that party (Weiss v.
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864;
Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018)
4 Cal.5th 607, 618), decide independently whether the facts not
subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party
as a matter of law. (Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015)

                                15
62 Cal.4th 340, 347; Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th
610, 618.)
       When a defendant moves for summary judgment in a
situation in which the plaintiff would have the burden of proof at
trial by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant may, but
need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element
of the plaintiff's cause of action. Alternatively, the defendant
may present evidence to “‘show[ ] that one or more elements of
the cause of action . . . cannot be established’ by the plaintiff.”
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853;
accord, Regents of University of California v. Superior Court,
supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 618 [“[a] defendant seeking summary
judgment must show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least
one element of the cause of action”]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (p)(2).) “The moving party bears the burden of showing the
court that the plaintiff has not established, and cannot
reasonably expect to establish, the elements of his or her cause of
action.” (Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 705, internal
quotation marks omitted; accord, Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co.
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 720; see Kahn v. East Side Union High
School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1002-1003 [“the defendant
must present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of
fact from finding that it was more likely than not that the
material fact was true [citation], or the defendant must establish
that an element of the claim cannot be established, by presenting
evidence that the plaintiff ‘does not possess and cannot
reasonably obtain, needed evidence’”].)
       Once the defendant’s initial burden has been carried, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate, by reference to
specific facts, not just allegations in the pleadings, there is a

                                16
triable issue of material fact as to the cause of action. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra,
25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if,
and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to
find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion
in accordance with the applicable standard of proof” at trial.
(Aguilar, at p. 850; accord, Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 722.)
       2. Governing Law
       Ideas, generally, are not subject to common law or
statutory copyright protection. (See Desny v. Wilder (1956)
46 Cal.2d 715, 731-732 [“‘[t]he general rule of law is, that the
noblest of human productions—knowledge, truths ascertained,
conceptions, and ideas—become after voluntary communication
to others, free as the air to common use’”]; Spinner v. American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 172, 184
(Spinner) [“[g]enerally, there is no property right in an idea”].)
However, California courts have recognized “that an idea can be
the subject of an express or implied contract, and its disclosure
and submission can be consideration for a promise to pay
compensation. Plaintiffs may therefore have a cause of action in
contract for disclosing an idea to a defendant that uses that idea
without compensation.” (Spinner, at p. 184; accord, Desny, at
p. 733 [“‘[t]he policy that precludes protection of an abstract idea
by copyright does not prevent its protection by contract’”].)
       Where, as here, there is no express agreement for
compensation for an idea, plaintiffs can prevail on a cause of
action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract by showing:
“(1) they clearly conditioned the submission of their ideas on an
obligation to pay for any use of their ideas; (2) the defendants,

                                 17
knowing this condition before the plaintiffs disclosed the ideas,
voluntarily accepted the submission of the ideas; and (3) the
defendants found the ideas valuable and actually used them—
that is, the defendants based their work substantially on the
plaintiffs’ ideas, rather than on their own ideas or ideas from
other sources.” (Spinner, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 184;
accord, Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Inc. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d
628, 646.) Esplanade’s breach of confidence and unfair
competition claims similarly require it to show Disney actually
used Goldman’s ideas. (See Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc.
v. NBC Universal, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 631, 649, 651.)
       Because direct evidence of a defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s
work is rare, a plaintiff may raise an inference of use by “showing
the defendant[ ] had access to [the plaintiff’s] ideas and the
defendant[’s] work is substantially similar to the plaintiff[’s]
ideas.” (Spinner, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 184-185; accord,
Ryder v. Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
1064, 1073; Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.) An inference
of use may be refuted by evidence “that conclusively
demonstrates the defendants independently created their
product.” (Spinner, at p. 185.)
       3. Judgment Was Properly Entered in Favor of Disney
          Based on Lack of Access to Goldman’s Work
      For purposes of summary judgment Disney does not
dispute the parties’ mutual understanding that any submission of
ideas by Goldman was conditioned on compensation should those
ideas be used by Disney. Disney also concedes the substantial
similarity between the title “Zootopia” in both its film and
Goldman’s pitch materials. Accordingly, the only question to be

                                 18
resolved at summary judgment was whether Esplanade could
show the creators of Disney’s Zootopia had access to Goldman’s
work5 and could therefore, coupled with the evidence of
substantial similarity, establish an inference Disney had used (or
copied) the pitch materials in creating the title “Zootopia.”
      In order to establish access sufficient to raise an inference
of use, Esplanade must show the creators of Disney’s Zootopia
“had an opportunity to view or to copy” Goldman’s work.
(Spinner, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 186.) “More than a ‘“bare
possibility”’ of access is required.” (Ibid.; accord, Mann v.
Columbia Pictures, Inc., supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 651 [“‘[t]here

5     While not explicitly argued by Esplanade on appeal, some
federal courts have found evidence of access is not required to
raise an inference of use where two works are “so strikingly
similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation.”
(Meta-Film Associates, Inc. v. MCA, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 1984)
586 F.Supp. 1346, 1355; see also 5 Nimmer on Copyright (2023)
§ 19D.07 [“‘[s]triking’ similarities from which such an inference
may be drawn are similarities of the kind that cannot be
explained, in the normal course of human events, by the
possibilities of independent creation, coincidence or prior common
source”].) Even if we were to adopt the “striking similarity”
exception to the access requirement, both works use of the word
“Zootopia” does not preclude the possibility of independent
creation or coincidence. The portmanteau of the words “zoo” or
“zoology” and “utopia” is not so exceptional on its own to raise an
inference of copying, as shown by evidence in the record that the
word was used by a New York radio station as the name of a
concert in 2000 and by a Texas zoo for the name of an event also
in 2000. Nor is it surprising that a Disney employee would blend
the word “utopia” with another word given one of Disneyland’s
original 1955 rides is named “Autopia,” which is itself a
combination of “automobile” and “utopia.”

                                19
must be a reasonable possibility of viewing plaintiff’s work—not a
bare possibility”].) Standing alone, submission of a plaintiff’s
work to the company whose employees are alleged to have copied
it is insufficient to establish access. (Spinner, at p. 186.) “A
reasonable possibility of access requires a sufficiently strong
nexus between the intermediary to whom the plaintiffs submitted
their work and the creator of the allegedly offending work.
[Citations.] The relationship linking the intermediary and the
creator should be more than the simple fact that they share a
common employer. [Citation.] For instance, the nexus may be
sufficiently strong when the intermediary was in a position to
transmit the plaintiffs’ work to the creator, was a supervisor with
responsibility for the creator’s work, was part of the same work
unit, was a contributor of creative ideas or material to the
creator’s work, or was otherwise in contact with the creator
regarding some subject matter that overlapped with the
plaintiffs’ work. [Citation.] In other words, the intermediary and
the alleged copier occupy positions such that it is natural for one
to impart information to the other.” (Id. at pp. 186-187.)
        Esplanade argues it sufficiently created a triable issue of
material fact regarding access because the evidence showed
Goldman submitted his materials to Taylor and Taylor said he
would forward them to the animation department. However, that
evidence establishes nothing more than bare corporate receipt of
the materials. Even if Taylor did submit Goldman’s pitch
materials to an unknown individual within Disney’s animation
department, there is no evidence any creator of Disney’s Zootopia
ever saw the pitch materials or discussed the project with Taylor.
To the contrary, Howard, Bush and Lasseter each testified he
had never seen the pitch materials or had any conversations with

                                20
Taylor regarding Zootopia. Nor is there any evidence Taylor
regularly contributed ideas or material to Howard, Bush or
Lasseter such that it would be natural for him to share the pitch
materials.
      Esplanade focuses on the relationship between Lasseter
and Taylor, arguing they “collaborated closely” on certain live
action films. This statement is not supported by the evidence.
Taylor testified Lasseter “consulted” on three of Taylor’s films,
providing creative feedback and opinions on a few occasions.
Lasseter also stated he generally consulted on certain films but
did not mention any relationship with Taylor. Nothing in the
record suggested a relationship existed between the men in which
they regularly collaborated or shared ideas for new material such
that Taylor would have reason to discuss Zootopia with Lasseter.
      Even more tenuous is Esplanade’s argument that Taylor
could have given Goldman’s pitch materials to Stanton, who then
worked with Lasseter on other films and also provided
commentary on Zootopia in 2014. There is simply no evidence
Taylor and Stanton would have had reason to discuss an
animation project, nor is there evidence Stanton would have
occasion to share that information with Lasseter or others
working on Zootopia. Esplanade’s access argument relies solely
on speculation and conjecture arising from the fact that some of
the individuals involved occasionally provided feedback on one
another’s work. That is insufficient as a matter of law to
establish access.6 (See Spinner, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 187
[“Spinner’s evidence is insufficient as a matter of law because he

6    Because we find no inference of use, we need not address
whether summary judgment was properly granted on the issue of
independent creation.

                                21
relies on a bare possibility of theoretical access premised on mere
speculation”]; see also Meta-Film Associates, Inc. v. MCA, Inc.
(1984) 586 F.Supp. 1346, 1355 [“tortuous chain of hypothetical
transmittals” insufficient to establish access].)
                         DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. Disney is to recover its costs on
appeal.

                                           PERLUSS, P. J.

      We concur:

            SEGAL, J.

            ESCALANTE, J.*

*     Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                22