0% found this document useful (0 votes)
665 views18 pagesCapote
@eriqgardner
Uploaded by
eriq_gardner6833Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
665 views18 pagesCapote
@eriqgardner
Uploaded by
eriq_gardner6833Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 18
| Edwin F, MePherson ~ State Bar No, 106084
Pierre — State Bar No, 21299
2| McPHERSON LLP
1801 Century Park Fast
3} 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
a) TekG1byss-8833
Fax:(310)553-9233
Attorneys for Plaintiff ALAN U. SCHWARTZ, TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST UNDER,
| ARTICLE THREE OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF TRUMAN CAPOTE
DATED MAY 4, 1981
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
° FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
a: | ALANU, SCHWARTZ, TRUSTEE OF) CASE NO.
THE TRUST UNDER ARTICLE THREE)
12| OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT | COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
| QRTRUMAN CAPOTE DATED MAY 4, } RELIEF
1 i
au Plaintiff, }
)
45 v. }
15| PARAMOUNT PICTURES 1
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; }
17) and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, }
18 Defendants, |
19
20 Plaintiff ALAN U. SCHWARTZ, TRUSTEE OF THE TRUMAN CAPOTE LITERARY
21| TRUST UNDER ARTICLE THREP OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF TRUMAN
22| CAPOTE DATED MAY 4, 1981 (hereinafter “PlaintifI”) complains and alleges as follows:
2 INTRODUCTION
5 1. Plaintiff is the Trustee ofa charitable trust, set up by Truman Capote, Capote is
the author who conceived “Breakfast at Tiffany's,” which ultimately became the ieonie motion
27] picture of the same name, which was produced by Paramount in 1961
28]
onl 1 2. Any and all rights that Paramount owned in connection with "Breakfast at
2| Tiffany's” reverted 10 Capote"s Executor upon Capote’s death in 1984, and ultimately
3} wransferred to Plaintiff,
4 3. In 1991, Plaintifand the Capote Estate entered into an agreement with Paramount,
5 | whereby Paramount optioned certain sequel and prequel rights, among others, with respect tothe
| film, ‘The agreement provided that, if motion picture was not produced within s certain amount
7) of time, the rights would revert back to Plaintiff.
8 4. Paramount did not produce a motion picture within the stated time period, and the
2| rights have reverted back to Plaintiff; Paramount therefore has po rights with respect to any of
10| Capote's Work other than to continue to exploit the original “Breakfast at Tiffany's” fim.
1 5. However, Paramount claims tha! no reversion occurred, that it had the right, but
12| not the obligation, to produce a film, snd that it purchased this risht for $300,000.00, What is
13] most inconceivable, however, is that Paramount claims that whether oF not it had an actual
14 obligation to exploit Plaintiff's valuable film rights depended exclusively on the timing of its,
15| acquisition payment
16
v PARTIES
w 6. Plains is, and a all vimes herein mentioned was, an individual, residing inthe
13| State of California, Coun'y of Los Angeles, and the Trustee of the Truman Capote Literary Trust
20] under Article Three of the Last Will and Testament of Truman Capote Dated May 4, 198)
21| (hereinafter the “Trust.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based upon such information and belief,
23| alleges that Defendant PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION (hereinafter “Paramount”)
24 | is and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, ding business in the State
of Califomia, County of Los Angeles.
a 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based upon such information and belief,
corporations,
28 | alleges tha! DOES 1 through SO are, and stall times herein mentioned w.
onl 1 | partnerships, or other business entities, which were and are legally responsible and liable for the
2| acts, omissions, and events referred to in this Complaint
3 9 Ph
fis informed and believes and, based upon such information and belie?
4] alleges that DOES $1 through 100 are, and at all times herein mentioned were, individuals, yho
| were and are legally responsible snd liable for the acts, omissions, and events referred 10 inthis
| Complaint
7 10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names ane! capacities of Defendants sued herein as
8| DOES | through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants under sueit fictitious names.
9| Plaintifts will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their trae names and capacities when
10| the same have been ascertained,
1 11. Plaintif?is informed and believes and, based on such information and belief,
12| alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are, snd at all times herein mentioned were, the alter
13] egos, agents, employees, partners, joint-veniurers, co-conspiraiors, owners, principals, and
14] employers of the remaining Defendants, and each of them, and are, and at all imes herein
15| mentioned were, acting within the course and scope of that ageney, employment, partnership,
15| conspiracy, ownership, of joint-venture, PlaintfT is further informed and believes and, based
17 upon such information and belief, alleges thatthe acts and conduct herein alleged of each such,
18] Defendant were known to, authorized by, andor ratified by the other Defendants, and each of
13] them.
20
2 SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Truman Capote
23 12, Truman Capote (hereinafter “Capote”) was an American novelist, short sory
24] writer, playwright, screenvriter, and actor. He began writing short stories when he was
approximately cight years old, His early stories were published in both literary quarterlies and
‘well-known popular magazines, Several of his short stories, novels, and plays have been praised.
27 | asliterary classics, including dn Cold Blood.
28]
onl 1 13. His works have been adapted into more than twenty films and television dramas.
2| He was awarded numerous awards for his work, including two Edgar Awards from the Mystery
2] Writers of America, an Emmy Award for Best Screenplay, and was nominated for a Writer's
4] Guild Award for Best
fen American Drama, as well as a Golden Globe for Best Acting
| Debut in'a Motion Picture.
1) The Trust
8 14. The Trust isa charitable trust, established in 1994 by Capote’s will. In
2 cooperation with the Towa Writers Workshop at the University of Towa, the Trust awards the
210] annual Truman Capote Award for Literary Critieism in Memory of Newton Arvin, ‘The award
11 | commemorates not only Capote but also his friend Newton Arvin, the Smith College professor
12| and criti, who lost his job after his homosexuality Was publicly exposed, The award is said to
13 be the largest annual cash prize for li
rary criticism in the English language
au 15. The Trust also awards graduate level fellowships at universities such as Cornell
15| University, the University of Towa, the University of Alabama, and the University of North
15| Carolina, It also funds undergraduate level scholarship programs to promote ereative writing,
17 programs through various universities and colleges. The Trust’s educational grantees include:
18| Appalachian State University, University of Alabama, Brooklyn College, California Institute of
13| the Aris, Comell University, Institute of American Indian Arts, University of fowa Writers!
20] Workshop, University of Montana, Ruigers University ~ Newark, Xavier University of
21 Louisiana, and Yale Law School
23) History of Capote's Work
2 16. In or about 1958, Capote wrote a novella entitled “Breakfast at Tiffany's”
25| hereinafter the “Work"), which was originally published in Esquire Magazine on October 16,
1958, The Work’s prose style has been praised effusively, and reportedly prompted Norman
27| Mailer to refer to Capote as “the most perfect writer of [his] generation.” Mailer has stated that
28] he “would not have changed 1wo words in “Breakfast at Tiffany's." Capote’s original typed
onl & | manuscript was sod at auction in 2013 for $306,000.00
2 17. Shortly ater ts first publication in Exguire, the Work was published by Random
2| House in a collection with thee other Capote stores, and received glowing reviews, The
4} collection has been reprinted several times
5 18, The Work was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in Capove's name on
5] October 14, 1958, under entry No. A:358806.
a 19. There have been two adaptations of Capote’s Work into stage phys, both directed
«| by Scan Mathias, The first production was presented in 2009 atthe Theatre Roval Haymarket in
9} London, starring Anna Fricl and Joseph Cross, The sccond version was presented on Broadway
10| in 2013, at the Cort Theatre, starring Emilia Clarke, Cory Michael Smith, George Wendt, ‘This
11 | version was also produced in the U.K. in 2016,
ran at the Theatre
Hed “a play with mu
12| Royal Haymarket in the West End from June to Sepiember, 2016
14| 1958 Motion Picture Rights Agreememt With Paramount
45 20. On December 9, 1958, Capote enters! into an agreement with Paramount (the
15| “L988 Agreement”), whereby Copote granted to Paramount the right to create a motion picture
17| as derivative work of Capote’s Work. The agreement provided the following:
18 The Author [Capote] hereby conveys, grants and assigns to
19 [Paramount] all the motion picture rights, forever and throughout the
20 world, in and to and in conneetion with [the Work}...
2 21. Pursuant {o the 1958 Agreement, Paramount produced a motion picture entitled
“Breakfast at Tiffany's,” starring Audrey Hepbum and George Peppard (hereinafter the
23) “Original Picture”), which was based upon, and derived from, Capote’s Work
24 22. The Original Picture was critically acclaimed, and won two Academy Awards, one
for Best Original Score and one for Best Original Song for “Moon River.” The film was also
26 | nominated for three other Academy Awards: Best Actress for Audrey Hepburn, Best Adapted
27] Screenplay, and Best Art Direction. In 2012, the film was deemed “culturally, historically, or
28) aesthet
ly significant” by the U.S. Library of Congress, and was selected for preservation in
onl 1 | the National Film Registry.
2| Capote's Death and Succession of Renewal Rights
a 23. Capote died on August 25, 1984, Pursuant o the Copyright Act of 1909, an author
| had the exclusive copyright in and to his/her copyrighted work for a 28-year term. Thereafter, if
| the author was alive during the initial renewal term, the author had the right 1 renew his or her
| exclusive copyright for an additional 28 years. (See §24 of the 1909 Act). Pursuant to the 1909
7) Act, the statutory succession worked as follows:
8 (a) Ifthe authoriowner of the copyright dies in the initial term of the work, then
2| the spouse andr children become the statutory successor class, with the sole right to renew said
10] copyrisht
1 (b) [Pthe authoriowner dies in the initial term of the copyright, childless,
12| unwed, but testate, and the right to renew the eopyrizht passes to the “Author's Executors,” not
13] in the executors’ own right but asa fiduciary for the testamentary devisees of said copyrighted
aa] work,
45 (©) Ifthe authorlowner dies in the initial term of the copyrighted work,
15| childless, umwed ond intsstat, the right to renew belongs to the author's “Next of Kin” under the
17| appropriate state law oF intestate succession, (See §24 of the 1909 Act),
18 24. Because Capote diod testate in the initial term of the copyright period (1958-1986),
13| without wife or children, the renewal ‘erm under the copyright statute passed to the Executor of
20| his estate, asthe fiduciary of the Trust established pursuant to Capote’s will, After Capote's
21 death, the copyright in the Work was therefore renewed by, and in the name of, Alan U.
Schwartz, as Executor of the Estate of Truman Capote, on April 18, 1986, under entry No. RE:
23) 291-743,
2 25. Byam Assigament of Copyright dated July 1, 1999, Alan U. Schwartz, as Executor
of the Estate of Truman Capote, assigned fo the Trustee of the Trust under Article Three of the
26 | Last Will and Testament of Truman Capote dated May 4, 1981, in trust, al 1
ht, title, and
27| interest to all of Capote’s literary works, including the Work, including "(1) all copyrights in the
28] United Staies of America and all copyrights and proprietary rights therein in all other countries
onl 1 throughout the world; and (2) all eauses of aetion for intingement of copyright and of other
2 rights of whatever nature, vested or contingent, past, present and future and to said literary
| works and all ofthe proceeds from the foregoing, acerved and unpaid snd thereafter aceruing.”
4 26. Although Capote, pursuant tothe 1958 Agrecment, had gronto film rights in ond
| tothe Work to Paramount, including renewal righs, and although it was not explicitly set forth
65| inthe assignment documents, the grant ofa U.S, copyright pursuant to statute was contingent on
+ Capote being ative forthe rewewal term of his copyright period, Because the grant was only a
«| grant ofan expectancy interest, and Capote did not receive te expectancy inttest, the grant of
9} the US. copyright (renewal peri to Paramount had no force or effect
10 27,
imilarly, Capote’s grant to Paramount of the right to make and distribute future
11| produetions and to continue di
ribution of the Original Picture
wg the renewal term of the
12| copyright was also deemed to have lapsed, To be sure, on April 24, 1990, the Supreme Court of
13] the United States deviled the case of Stewart ». Abend, 495 US. 207 (1990), which held that: “if
14] the author (ofa story upon which a motion picture or other derivative work is based] dies before
15| the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work andy ifthe author's
15| suceessor transfers the renewal rights o the assignee +
7 28. In fact, according to Siewart, Paramount's continued distribution or other
18| exploitation of the Original Picture during the renewal term would constitute an infringement of
13| Capoie’s copyright. “In this case, the giant of rights in the pre-existing work lapsed and,
20] therefore, the derivative work owner's rights to use those portions of the pre-existing work
21 incorporaied into the derivative work expired, Thus, continued use would be inf
wees To
say otherwise is fo say thatthe derivative work nullifies the “force” ofthe copyright in the
23| ‘matter employed.” (Stewart, at 236). “So long as the pre-existing work remains out of the
24] public domain, its use is infringing if one who employs the work does not have a valid license or
assignment for use ofthe pre-existing work.” (Stewurt, at 223), The same goes for the
production of any sequels, prequels, or remakes thereof.
a 29. The Trust, as Capote’s her, therefore also had its own exclusive right to produce
28] such sequels, prequels, and remakes, orto assign those rights to third parties, and to prevent the
onl 1 | exploitation of the Original Picture, irrespective of the express terms ofthe 1988 Agreement.
2| “The renewal provisions [of the Copyright Act] were intended to give the author a second
| chance to obsain fair remuneration for his creative efforts and to provide the author's family a
4 ‘new estate’ if the author died before the renewal period arrived. An author holds a bundle of
| exclusive rights in the copyrighted work, among them the right ‘0 copy and the right to
65| incorporate the work in derivative works.” (Stewart at 220).
7 30. Plaintiff therefore regained exclusive ownership and control over very valuable
| intellectual property, particularly considering the success and fame of Capote’ original
9 “Breakfast at Tiffany's” story an the Original Picture. Asa tevull of the Seovarr decision,
10| Paramount, on the other hand, had Jos all ownership rights in very valuable intellectual property.
1 31. Paramount was therefore faced with the devastating prospect of forever lasing its
12| right to exploit the Original Picture, forever being preeluded froin making a sequel, prequel, or
13| remake thereof, and forever being precluded from exploiting any television or other rights in
14| connection with Capote’s Work.
a5 32, Desperate to re-obiain the rights to distribute the Original Picture, Paramount
15| initially took the position that Plaintiff'was legally obligated to negotiate a "new deal.”
17| However, Plaintiff pointed cut thal the Stewart decision quite clearly did away with any such
18| argument. “But moshing in the copyright statutes would prevent an author from hoarding all
19| of his works during the form of the copyright. In fact, this Court has held that a copyright
20| owner has the capacity arbitrarily to refuse to license one who seeks to exploit the work.”
21 (Stewart, at 229) (emphasis ade).
33. Plaintiff was therefore well within his rights to refuse to allow Paramount to
23| further distribute the derivative Original Picture, to refuse to even negotiate with Paramount for
24] such rights or sequel, ei. rights, and to sue Paramount for copyright inftingement for any
continued exploitation of the Original Picture or anything else that was derivative of Capote’s
Work.
a 34. Notwithstanding Plaimtiff"s superior bargaining position inthis regard, Plaintiff,
28 | for the sake of the property, did agree to negotiate with Paramount concerning certain rights,
onl 1 | because it was extremely important to Plaimriff— and in fact was Plaintiff's primary cone —
that this very valuable property be exploited properly, and actually prod! istributed,
3} Plain
‘was not interested, at any time, in having the rights tied up for an indefinite period of
| time with no movement on production, irrespective of who had those rights, and irrespective of
| how much money he received for those rights,
6 35. Plaintiff was willing to negotiate « new agrooment that would grant Paramount the
7 continuing right to distribute the Original Picture, and to grant an option to Paramount 10 allow it
8| to produce future films based upon Capote’s Work. However, it was essential that such grant of
9 future rights would be conditional upon Paramount's actually producing at least one motion
10] picture by a date certain,
1 36. By 1990-1991, the value of the fusure production rights of Capote's Work had
12| greatly increased sinee 1957, dve to the successful snd ieonie Orizinal Picture, and the ongoing
13] success of the “Breakfast at Tiffany's” story. Therefore, in 1990-1991, Plaintiff was not willing
14| to return to the conditions sot in the original 1957 Agreement between Paramount and Capote, in
15| which the future production rights had been granied without any corresponding obligation of
15| Paramount to ectually produce any motion picture based on the Work (other than the Original
17) Picture).
15| Negotiations Leading Up To 1991 Agreement
20 37. Paramount nevertheless took the position during those early negotiations that
‘wats improperly makin
cessive financial demands,” and was “suppressing farther
22| exploitation of te film.” However, Plaintiff pointed out that that very argument had been dealt
23| with squarely in the Stewart decision, in which the Supreme Court determined that the author or
24] successor may suppress distribution of an existing work and make whatever demands that it
wishes, “Others may make demands... which are so exorbitant that a negotiated economic
accommodation will be impossible... These arguments are better addressed by Congress
27| thaw the courts... Presumably, respondent is asking for a share in the proceeds because he
28| wants ro profit from the distribution of the work, mot because he seeks suppression of it.
onl L | The limited monopoly granted tothe artist is intended to provide the necessary bargsining
2| capital to garner «fei price forthe value of the works passing into public use.” (Stewart, at
3} 228-29) (emphasis added)
4 38, Prior to catering into an agreement with Plaintiff in 1991, Paremount made it very
5 | clear tha it intended to commence production ofa remake ofthe Original Pictire son afer the
| agreement was signed. In feet, on or about March 19, 1991, less than five months prior to
into the 1991 Agreement, Paramount entered into a separate agreement with Robert
8| Evans to produce the remake. When that agreement was superseded and incorporated into an
| overall producing deal with Paramount in July of 1991, Paramount even not ied Schwartz ofthe
10] same by letter dated July &, 1991.
1 39. Robert Fans, at the time, was uni “A-List” producer, having personally produced
12| “Chinatown,” “Marathon Man,” “Black: Sunday,” “Urban Cowboy,” “The Cotton Club,” and
13] “The Two Jakes.” In addition, asthe (previous) head of production at Paramount, Evans had
14] also overseen “Barefoot in the Park,” “The Odd Couple,” “The Deteetive,” “Rosemary's Baby,”
15] “True Grit.” “The Confession,” “Love Story,” “Plaza Suite.” “Harold and Maude.” “The
“Serpico,” "Save the Tiger,” “The Great Gatsby,” and “The Conversation.” Asa
he Gofiather Part
15] Godfather,
17 studio executive, he also oversiw
18 40. Plaintiff therefore understood that Paramount would produce the motion picture
19| relatively quickly after siping, and ecrainly never intended to allow Paramount to have an
20] open-ended perpetual righ te produce a remake or sequel without actually producing that
21 motion picture
41. Both parties were to benefit substantially from the actual production of a new
23| motion picture, and Plaintiff certainly would not have agreed to allow Paramount to sit on
24] remake rights, while not producing the picture. Moreover, Plaintiff certainly would not have
ddone so for the mere $300,000.00 that Paramount ultimately paid, especially when Capote’s
26 | original typed menuscript of the novella alone, years later, would be sold for more money.
a 42. During the negotiations, Plaintiff's representative indicated that the purchase price
28] for the rights should be “made upon the earliest of (i) exercise of the option, (i) making a star
io
onl £ | pay-or-plsy or (it) commencement of principal photography,” making Plaintf"s understanding
2 clear that the production ofthe remake was imminent, and tht Paramount might be signing a
2} star ator or starting filming before it even excercise the option to produce the pier.
4 43. Later in the negotiations, Paramount indicated that it did nt want to “te rights
5} payments tothe vagaries of star deals,” and therefore would agree to “pay the purchase prise on
65| the earlier ofthe option exercise or commencement of prircipal photogtaphy of [the remake,”
7) thus confirming its own intent imminently to commence production of the remake.
8 44. Plaintiff and Paramount also discussed the concept of Plaintiff's entering into an
2 agreement with a thitd party to produce a motion picture. Paramount demonstrated its
10| acknowledgment that anyone tying up the rights to produce a motion picture indefinitely,
11 | without actually producing the picture, was antithe
140 the intent oF the parties, by stating the
12) following: “The suggestion that [Plaintiff] could tie-up the rights in perpetuity by entering into
13) an agreement with some third pargy is plainly contrac) tothe intent of the negotiations”
a 45. Very clearly, neither party wanted there to be any tie-up in rights that would allow
15} either par to sit on those rights and refrain from: proxlucing the picture,
17| 1991 Agreement Benween Estate, Trust, and Paramount
18 46. On or about August 13, 1991, the Capote Estate and Plaintiff entered into an
15] “Option Agreement, Assignment of Copyright and Settlement Agreement” (hereinafter the
20] “1991 Agreement”) with Paramount. In the Agreement, Paramount acknowledged, among other
at Paramount desired to is
in Fights to produce future productions based upon the Work” in the
21| things, ute the Original Picture throughout the world and to
obtain from Plains “ce
23| renewal jerm of the copyright of the Work
2 47. In accordance with the 1991 Agreement, in the event that Paramount produced a
‘motion picture based upon Capote’s Work, Plaintiff was to receive 3% of the Adjusted Gross
26 | Receipts from the picture after initial cash breakeven, thus giving Plaintiff added incentive to
27] meke certain that the motion picture was produced.
28]
onl 1 48. The Agreement provided that there was to be an Initial Option Period (for sequel,
2| prequel, and prequel rights) from August 14, 1991 through Pebruary 14, 1993, for which
| Paramount was to pay $100,000.00, In that regard, Paramount paid Plaintii?'$100,000,00 upon
4 exocution of the 1991 Agreement
5 49. There was also to be a Second Option Period (for sequel, prequel, and remake
65| rights) from August 14, 1993 through August 14, 1994, for which Paramount was fo pay an
7) additional $75,000.00. In that regard, Paramount paid PlaintifT $75,000.00 on February 8, 1993.
8 50. _Afier the Second Option Period expired, thete was to be a six-year reversionary
| period (from August 14, 1994 through August 14, 2000), whereby all rights (other than the
10| continuing right to exploit the Original Picture) reverted to Plaintiff. [n yet another example of
11 | how important it was to the partes to actualy get a motion picture produced, PlaintitT had six.
12| years, not to hold rights or fo exercise any option, but to actually commence production of a
13] motion picture,
au 51. During the Initial Option Period and the Second Option Period, the “Made for TV
15| Series rights” were to be “oven,” as between Plainiiffand Paramount until Plaintif's
15| “Reversionary Period” ({1.B.). In the event that Paramount exercised one of those options, “the
17 Made for TV Series rights shall remain frozen as set forth in Paragraph TILB. above,” (meaning,
18| that such rights were to be fkozen until Plaintiff's Reversionary Period, which commenced on
15] August 14, 1994, and Paramount had right of first negotiation and matching rights thereafter,
20 ‘52, _In the event that Plaintiff did not commence production of the motion picture
21 during thet time, Paramount was to teceive an additional three-year option, from August 14,
2000 through August 14, 2003, “to produee further Motion Pictures based upon the Work
23| This period was referred to as the “Additional Option Perio.”
2 53. Consistent with both parties” intent to get the motion picture produced and not tie
up Plaintif’s valuable rights in the Work in perpetuity, the 1991 Agreement provided that, ater
paying the Acqu
ion Price of $300,000.00 at any time for the rights that were optioned, if
27 Paramount did not produce @ motion picture by the end of the Additional Option Period (August
28] 14, 2003), then all rights regarding Capote’s Work, other than Paramount’s “continuing and
2-
onl 1 | perpetual distribution rights to the Original Picture." would revert to Plait: The rights that
2| were subject to reversion included, among other rights, sequel rights, prequel rights, remake
3 | rights, and! made for television series rights.
4 4, Paramount paid the Acquisition Price of $300,000.00 on August 8, 1994
5 58. The August 14, 2003 reversion w Plaintiff was never conditioned on when
5| Paramount pad the acquisition price f $300,000.00 to Pleintif; In fac, it was the production
7 of the motion picture that was Pluinif’s primary concer; not when Paramount decided to write
8 the check,
° 56. Tobe sure, there was nothing inthe 1991 Agreement that expressed or implied
10] thet Paramount would have to pay more for an acquisition foo ifit pail Plant in 1994 (in
11| which case, according to Paramount, it would possess the sequel, prequel, and remake rights
12} subject to no reversion if the motion plcture were ot produced by August 14, 2003) than iit
15) paid Plain in 2003 (in which case, aceoiding to Paramount, here would be @ reversion to
14) Plaintiff the motion picture were not produced by August 14, 2003), thus being of substantially
15] less value.
a6 57. If Paramount ad even hinted that it would take the position inthe future that
17] paying the acquisition fee in 1994, ther than in 2003, would have such a catastrophic legal
18 significance, i, that Paramount would have the perpetual right, but no obligation, to produce a
18} motion picture, Paint quite clearly would never have entered into the 1991 Agreement
20 ‘58. Paramount failed to produce a motion picture by August 14,2003. As such, any
21 and all rights that Paramouint Owned in connect
n with Capote’s Work, except for the right 10
continue to exploit the Original Picture, automatically reverted to Plaintiff on that date,
24| Knowledge of the Parties Afler the 1991 Agreement
5 59. Plaintiff and Paramount both understood that such rights reverted to Plaintiff on
August 14, 2003, For example, in 2004, Plaintiff and Paramount discussed Paramount's
27| possible investment in a Broadway or West End production of a musical based on the Work that
28] the Estate had licensed because “it would also be beneficial to the continued revenues of the
onl 1 | original morion picrure wo have Paramoum work closely with the Trust nd with any commercial
2| producer in exploiting the rights to the musical version of “Breakfast at Tiffany's.” There was
3} no discussion of Paramount's potential investment being beneficial (o any other rights in the
4 Work, because all such rights had reverted to Plaimtff'some nine months previously.
5| Paramount's Interference With Plaintiff's Third Party Negotiations
7 60. In or about January of 2020, Plaintiff (through his agent), opened discussions with
8| several (ultimately numbering ten) producers conceming the production of a limited television
2| series based on Capote's Work. All seemed 1o agree that a television series was the best and
10| most strategic vehicle for a “Breakfast at Tiffany's” project.
1 61. Plaintiff, for many reasons, believed that it would be most approp.
jet secure a
12| female producer to produce what would basicaly be the story of “Breakfast at Tiffany's”
13| character, Holly Golightly
a 62. Plaintiff received numerous bids forthe proj
that were exceptional and
15| acceptable, with hundreds 0° thousands of dolla
offered for up front payments, with significant
15| seven-figure back-end payments
7 63. Three or four wecks into the biddingnegotiations, executives from Paramount
18| contacted Plainti?’s agent, requesting information about the discussions. Plaintiff's agent
19| advised them that he had been shopping the series, and that there were a number of parties that
20] were very interested in producing the project.
2 64. Paramount's executives then advised Plaintiff's agent that there was @ problem
\with the rights. They indicated that Paramount (after 26 years) ad done a "deep dive” into the
23| rights, ond determined that Paramount and Plaintiff shared in the television series rights. They
24] then demanded that Plaiatiff cease and desist om engaging in any further discussions with any
‘third partes.
26] 65. While PlaintifTdid, infact, accede to the demands of Paramount, he made his
27 position clear to Paramount that the Trust, and not Paramount, exclusively owned and controlled
28 | all such television series rights, Attomeys for PlaimifT exchanged levters with Paramount's