Durkin v. Platz

Decision Date30 January 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 1:10–cv–2262–TCB.
Citation920 F.Supp.2d 1316
PartiesBrian F. DURKIN and Craig W. Richards, Plaintiffs, v. Ann PLATZ and Rachel Thomas Hale, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David Alan Rabin, Marguerite E. Patrick, Stephen Manning Vaughn, Morris Manning & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Scott Douglas Sanders, Scott D. Sanders, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., District Judge.

The relationship between Defendants Ann Platz and Rachel Thomas Hale and Plaintiffs Brian F. Durkin and Craig W. Richards started off amicably enough. Desiring to adapt their unpublished manuscript “The Snow White Ladies of the Third Week” into a movie, Defendants decidedto join forces with Plaintiffs, who have experience in the movie business and had recently formed a production company.

Plaintiffs explained to Defendants that the first step in making their dream a reality was to write a screenplay. The parties determined that Plaintiffs would write the screenplay and executed a contract to that effect. The parties now dispute the scope of that agreement.

Plaintiffs contend that in addition to being a contract for the parties to create a screenplay together, the contract also evidences the parties' intent to form a partnership to produce the screenplay into a “Snow White Ladies” movie. Plaintiffs claim Defendants breached the contract, as well as their fiduciary duty as partners, when Defendants refused to work with them to develop a film based on the screenplay and feigned dissatisfaction with the screenplay, despite months of plentiful praise. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that under the contract they are co-owners of the screenplay and therefore have the right to use their screenplay to make a movie regardless of whether Defendants grant them permission to do so.

Defendants, however, insist that the parties never formed a partnership to make a movie based on the screenplay. According to them, the parties' contract was simply for the creation of the screenplay: Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs $8,000 and perform as editors of the first draft, and Plaintiffs were to write a screenplay to Defendants' satisfaction. They argue that they have paid Plaintiffs $8,000 and edited the first draft and thus have no further obligation to them. Moreover, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot show any ownership interest in the screenplay and Plaintiffs cannot make a “Snow White Ladies” movie without Defendants' permission.

This case comes before the Court on Defendants' second motion for summary judgment [89] and motion for a hearing [109] and Plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert, David Blakesley [81].

I. Background1A. The Parties' Budding Relationship

In 2005, Defendants wrote “The Snow White Ladies of the Third Week.” It is a dramatic comedy centering on an exclusive bridge club known as the Snow White Ladies of the Third Week located in the small, traditional fictional Southern town of St. Bartholomew.2 On January 30, 2006, Defendants filed a copyright registration of their unpublished manuscript, and on June 14, 2010, they filed a second copyright registration for the revised manuscript.

After completing the manuscript, Defendants became interested in making it into a movie. Platz was introduced to Durkin and gave him a copy of the manuscript to review. After reading the manuscript, Durkin sent Platz an email in January 2008 telling her, “I have a visual of this film and I believe it's because of how well you and Rachel painted the picture.... I would love nothing more than to be tucked away in a small southern town for 3 or 4 months to shoot this.”

A year and a half later, in August 2009, Durkin reached out to Platz to let her know that he and Richards were putting together a production company. In that conversation, he told her that as a first step to making a movie, they would need to turn Defendants' manuscript into a screenplay.

In September 2009, Platz emailed Durkin, [W]e are thrilled that you and Mary Catherine [Durkin's wife] 3 want to consider producing Snow White Ladies.” Durkin then forwarded Platz an email from Richards, in which Richards said that Plaintiffs “would need to contract the ‘rights' to shop this project, and yes it needs to be exclusive.”

On September 28, 2009, Richards sent an email to Platz introducing himself and telling her that he and Durkin “would like to propose to you our thoughts concerning the desire to work with you and move this project to the next stage, a ‘pitch-able’ feature film package.” Richards then included a “task list”: “A. Write an adaptation of the manuscript into a script. B. Define the location and look of the project. C. Research a director and casting short list. D. Create a producer's preliminary budget and schedule. E. Submit various Business/Creative/Investor license and registrations.” As far as a screenplay, Richards gave Defendants two options: [p]ay an established writer to create a ‘first pass' script” or We write the adaptation together!” In subsequent emails, the parties exchanged casting ideas for the film.

B. The Blossoming of the Screenplay

In early October 2009, Richards prepared an initial draft of an agreement and submitted it to Plaintiffs. Platz gave the draft to an attorney friend to review. Platz's friend made changes, including adding language that “Copyright Holders shall own the script.” Platz emailed the edited draft to Plaintiffs, and said, “I am so excited about this partnership!” After receiving Defendants' changes, Plaintiffs further revised the agreement by editing Defendants' language to read “Copyright Holders and Writers/Producers shall own the script in full partnership” and returned the new draft to Defendants.

At this point, Plaintiffs had already begun writing the screenplay even though the parties had not actually signed an agreement, and on October 12, Durkin sent the first twenty-six pages of Plaintiffs' first draft. Platz responded, [A]bsolutely wonderful ... great job ... guys!”

The next day, Durkin emailed Platz the next thirty pages of the first draft. Platz responded, [G]reat!!!!!!” That same day, Plaintiffs and Defendants signed a finalized agreement. The one-page contract reads in its entirety as follows:

Memorandum of Agreement

BETWEEN

Ann Platz and Rachel Thomas Hale: The Third Week Brigade, LLC

AND
Craig Richards and Brian Durkin

Ann Platz and Rachel Thomas Hale (Copyright Holders) under the Georgia Corporation: The Third Week Brigade, LLC and Craig Richards and Brian Durkin (Writers/Producers) agree to enter into this Agreement for the creation of a long form feature film script adaptation of the literary property entitled “Snow White Ladies of the Third Week.”

The period of performance for this Agreement shall be [October 13, 2009] through satisfaction of Copyright Holders and/or date of first talent, creative or development attachment, not to exceed [October 13, 2010].

Copyright Holders agree to:

1. Reimburse Writers/Producers up to $[8,000] for above-referenced project; [in two installments: $4,000 upon agreement, balance payable upon completion of first draft submission]

2. Perform as Editors for this first draft/pass of adaptation cycle, October 12–22, 2009.

Writers/Producers agree to:

1. Create a first pass full feature film script adaptation of the literary property entitled “Snow White Ladies of the Third Week” to the satisfaction of the copyright holders.

2. Refer all work daily via electronic or verbal communications during adaptation cycle.

3. Submit a Producers top sheet production budget no later than December 22, 2009.

Both institutions agree to the following:

1. Modifications to this Agreement will be made by mutual agreement in writing.

2. Writers Guild of America EAST registration submission.

3. Copyright Holders and Writers/Producers shall own the script in full partnership.

By signing this agreement both institutions agree to be active partners and agree to abide by this agreement.

In the “Copyright Holders” signature block, Platz and Hale signed and dated the agreement, and Durkin and Richards signed and dated the agreement as the “Writers/Producers.” Pursuant to their agreement, Defendants paid Durkin and Richards $2,000 each upon signing the agreement.

Three days after executing the contract, Durkin emailed Defendants another seventy pages of the screenplay. Platz responded, “Bravo! I love it soooooo much ... I do not know what we will have to shave off to make it 2 [&] 1/2 hours of film ... I love it all. You two are doing an amazing job!”

On October 27, Plaintiffs submitted the first pass of the screenplay, and Defendants paid Plaintiffs the remaining $2,000 each. The parties continued to work on the screenplay to create a “shooting script.” Plaintiffs submitted revised portions of the screenplay to Defendants, and Defendants edited the revisions.

On November 12, Hale emailed Plaintiffs, “I am thrilled to be working with you all on this project and have the utmost confidence in your guidance and direction.” On December 22, Plaintiffs emailed Defendants to notify them that they had completed a first draft of the screenplay and would be delivering it to Defendants. After reviewing the draft, Platz responded, “Great genius ... You guys are awesome! Love the funny stuff you added!” On December 30, Hale sent Plaintiffs an email, this time stating, [Platz] and I have read and discussed the script nearly line by line. You all have done a magnificent job and we love it.”

On January 5, 2010, Durkin emailed Platz, Hale and Richards, [W]e believe we should move forward with the script as it is. All the little ‘tweaks' we are talking about can be covered in revisions in the pre-production phase.” Platz replied, “I agree. I think it's time to move it forward. I love what you have created with the script. I agree that we have something very special. The world needs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Cameron v. Teeberry Logistics, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • January 30, 2013
  • First Benefits, Inc. v. Amalgamated Life Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-37 (MTT)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • December 8, 2014
    ...profit." O.C.G.A. § 14-8-6(a). "A partnership results from a contract, which may be either express or implied." Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (citing Clark v. Schwartz, 210 Ga. App. 678, 436 S.E.2d 759, 760 (1993)). In the absence of an express partnership agre......
  • Bruce v. Classic Carrier, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 24, 2014
    ...concluded that this requires the court to exclude the "harmless" part of the Rule 37(c)(1) criteria. See Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2013)(Batten, J.)("[T]he standard for striking untimely expert testimony is not whether the opposing party is prejudiced, but whethe......
9 books & journal articles
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2018 Contents
    • August 8, 2018
    ...opponent’s failure to meet FRCP requirements does not excuse litigant from meeting its own obligations under FRCP); Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (late disclosure of experts based on opposing party’s allegedly late response to interrogatories unjustiied); GlobalRock ......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Handling Federal Discovery
    • May 1, 2022
    ...opponent’s failure to meet FRCP requirements does not excuse litigant from meeting its own obligations under FRCP); Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (late disclosure of experts based on opposing party’s allegedly late response to interrogatories unjustified); GlobalRock......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2016 Contents
    • August 8, 2016
    ...opponent’s failure to meet FRCP requirements does not excuse litigant from meeting its own obligations under FRCP); Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (late disclosure of experts based on opposing party’s allegedly late response to interrogatories unjustified); GlobalRock......
  • Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2019 Contents
    • August 8, 2019
    ...opponent’s failure to meet FRCP requirements does not excuse litigant from meeting its own obligations under FRCP); Durkin v. Platz, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (late disclosure of experts based on opposing party’s allegedly late response to interrogatories unjustiied); GlobalRock ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT