## Facts

- Anthony Spinner, a television writer/producer, wrote a pilot project tentatively titled “L.O.S.T.” for ABC-related development in 1976–1977 and delivered outlines, a synopsis, and a completed script to ABC personnel involved at that time.
- Spinner’s 1977 script involved plane-crash survivors (including archetypal roles such as a doctor and military officer) and a storyline culminating in travel to a prehistoric world.
- ABC did not proceed with Spinner’s project and later declined additional submissions by Spinner in the early 1990s.
- In 2003–2004, ABC developed the television series *Lost* from an internal concept originated by an ABC executive, followed by hiring writers/producers who created the pilot and series materials through a documented sequence of meetings, notes, outlines, drafts, and emails.
- *Lost* featured ensemble plane-crash survivors on a mysterious tropical island, including character types Spinner claimed were similar to his earlier work.
- Spinner sued ABC in 2009 alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract (idea-submission/Desny-type claim), asserting ABC used his submitted ideas to create *Lost*.
- ABC moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that the *Lost* creators and key participants had no knowledge of Spinner or his materials and that the series was independently created; ABC’s file search did not locate the 1977 script (only a later, different treatment).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for ABC; Spinner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Spinner produced evidence sufficient to create a triable issue that the *Lost* creators had access to Spinner’s submitted materials for purposes of an implied-in-fact contract (idea-submission) claim.
2. Whether ABC’s evidence of independent creation established entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to Spinner to produce contrary evidence of use.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for ABC.
- Spinner failed to raise a triable issue that the relevant *Lost* creators had access to, and used, Spinner’s 1977 materials.
- ABC’s contemporaneous development record supported independent creation and negated an inference that *Lost* was developed from Spinner’s submission.
- Claimed similarities (e.g., plane-crash survival premise and certain character types) were insufficient, without access evidence, to permit a reasonable inference of use at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract theory for idea submission requires proof that the defendant actually used the plaintiff’s submitted ideas; evidence of access by the relevant creators is ordinarily necessary to support an inference of use.
- Prior submission to a company, without evidence connecting the submission to the later creative team, does not alone create a triable issue of access—especially where substantial time has passed and personnel differ.
- A defendant may prevail on summary judgment by presenting a detailed, contemporaneous evidentiary record tracing independent creation and showing no meaningful chain of access to the plaintiff’s submission.
- Similarities that are generic or common to the genre do not, standing alone, substitute for evidence that the defendant’s creators had access to the plaintiff’s work.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for ABC because Spinner’s proof showed, at most, historical submission to the network decades earlier and did not link his materials to the individuals who conceived and developed *Lost*, while ABC’s documented development history established independent creation and defeated the idea-submission implied-contract claim as a matter of law.


Spinner v. American Broad. Cos., 215 Cal. App. 4th 172 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)