## Facts

- A television writer, Michael Givens, wrote a script titled “The Fourth Estate a/k/a Final Edition” (“Final Edition”).
- Westwind Releasing Corporation optioned the script to obtain a network broadcast commitment; the agreement tied any writing credit for Givens to Writers’ Guild of America (WGA) credit procedures and made additional compensation contingent on receiving specified credit.
- CBS entered agreements to acquire broadcast rights and later to purchase all rights to “Final Edition” from Westwind and Givens.
- The later agreement stated that if a project were produced based on the literary property, CBS would provide Mike Jacobs, Jr. and William Webb credit as co-executive producers (or executive producers at CBS’s election) on a shared card.
- CBS later participated in producing the series “Early Edition,” which shared a common premise with “Final Edition.”
- When tentative writing credits for “Early Edition” were issued, Givens was not listed as a writer, and Jacobs and Webb were not listed as executive producers.
- Givens invoked the WGA’s internal credit process; after an informal investigation and repeated requests for reconsideration, the WGA concluded Givens did not warrant credit.
- Givens, Jacobs, Webb, and Westwind sued CBS for breach of contract based on the alleged failure to provide promised writing and production credits.

## Issues

1. Whether, under California issue-preclusion doctrine, an informal WGA internal credit determination is sufficiently adjudicatory to have collateral estoppel effect.
2. Whether nonmutual collateral estoppel could bar plaintiffs’ contract claims based on the WGA’s credit determination.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for CBS and remanded.
- The court held the WGA credit process was too informal and lacked necessary procedural safeguards to be given collateral estoppel effect.
- Because the WGA determination was not preclusive, it could not bar plaintiffs from litigating their contract-based credit claims in court.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, issue preclusion may arise from a nonjudicial proceeding only when the proceeding is adjudicatory in nature and includes procedural safeguards comparable to those in judicial proceedings.
- Relevant safeguards include meaningful opportunities to present evidence and adversarial testing (such as sworn testimony and cross-examination) before an impartial decisionmaker.
- Informal, investigative, correspondence-based internal determinations that lack these safeguards generally do not support collateral estoppel.
- Courts should apply nonmutual collateral estoppel cautiously where the prior proceeding is private and minimally reviewable by courts.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the WGA’s internal credit investigation did not provide adjudicatory procedures sufficient for issue preclusion, so the determination could not bar the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Jacobs v. CBS Broad., Inc., 291 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002)