IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—C.D. Cal.: Screenwriter’s counsel liable for sanctions in copyright and trade secrets lawsuit against Disney, (May 18, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The lead attorney relied on a falsified agreement and pursued time-barred, defective claims.

A federal district court in California has imposed sanctions against a screenwriter’s lead counsel in a copyright and trade secrets dispute against The Walt Disney Company, finding that the attorney acted in bad faith by advancing claims based on a falsified confidentiality agreement, pursuing trade secret theories grounded in publicly available material, and continuing to litigate time-barred claims, particularly after contrary evidence emerged in discovery. The court held that this conduct unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, entitling Disney and its co-defendants to recover excess attorney’s fees. The court, however, declined to sanction other attorneys involved in the case, concluding that the record did not establish their participation in the misconduct (Woodall v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 2:20-cv-03772-CBM-E (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Buck Woodall, is a screenwriter and creator who developed a project titled “Bucky,” comprising scripts and related creative materials. He sued The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, and several affiliated entities.

Woodall asserted copyright in various components of his “Bucky” project, including scripts and audiovisual concepts. The accused work was Disney’s Moana, including its distribution by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. A central element of Woodall’s claims was a purported confidentiality agreement allegedly executed in 2003 by Disney executive Jenny Marchick, which he contended bound Disney entities and supported his trade secret and fraud allegations.

Woodall filed suit in April 2020, initially asserting copyright infringement and accounting claims, and later expanding the case to include trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law, along with fraud-based claims. The defendants challenged the claims through motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. In November 2024, the court dismissed most claims as time-barred, leaving only a narrow copyright claim concerning the post-2017 distribution of Moana. Following a 10-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Disney, finding that the filmmakers did not have access to Woodall’s works. Disney then sought sanctions against Woodall’s counsel for litigation misconduct.

Falsified confidentiality agreement. The court found that Woodall’s counsel acted in bad faith by relying on a falsified confidentiality agreement throughout the litigation. Although Woodall attached the agreement to his pleadings as a “true and correct copy” allegedly signed by Jenny Marchick, he later admitted in deposition and at trial that he had handwritten Marchick’s name and added a date shortly before filing suit.

Despite receiving notice from Disney’s counsel as early as September 2020 that the document was believed to be a forgery, counsel failed to conduct a timely investigation and continued to rely on the agreement in pleadings, discovery responses, and motion practice. The court held that such conduct satisfied the bad-faith standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Citing Caputo v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 96 F.4th 1111 (9th Cir. 2024), the court emphasized that recklessly advancing frivolous arguments or misrepresenting facts warrants sanctions. It also relied on In re Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010), which recognized that intentional or reckless misrepresentation of evidence constitutes sanctionable conduct.

The court further noted that the confidentiality agreement had been pivotal in allowing the trade secret claims to survive early dismissal, thereby prolonging the litigation and increasing costs.

Trade secrets based on public disclosures. The court also concluded that counsel acted in bad faith by maintaining trade secret claims based on information that had been publicly disclosed. Earlier in the case, the court had ruled that materials posted on Woodall’s website or deposited with the Copyright Office could not qualify as trade secrets.

Notwithstanding that ruling, counsel continued to argue at summary judgment and trial that such materials remained protected, including by invoking a website-based confidentiality notice. The court rejected this position as frivolous and noted that reasserting arguments previously rejected by the court constituted reckless conduct. Citing In re Keegan Mgmt. Co. Securities Litigation, 78 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1996), the court held that persisting with legally untenable theories supported sanctions.

Time-barred claims. A further basis for sanctions was counsel’s continued prosecution of claims that were clearly barred by the statute of limitations. The operative complaints alleged that Woodall first viewed Moana in 2017. However, Woodall later testified that he saw the film in theaters in December 2016 and suspected copying at that time. Applying a three-year limitations period, the court had already dismissed the trade secret, fraud, and most copyright claims as untimely at summary judgment. The court found that counsel’s failure to withdraw those claims after learning of Woodall’s testimony constituted bad faith. Relying on Goldmanis v. Insinger, 679 F. App’x 605 (9th Cir. 2017), and In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., the court held that continuing to litigate claims known to be defective unreasonably multiplied the proceedings.

Responsibility of counsel. The court imposed sanctions solely on Gustavo D. Lage, who had signed the pleadings and directed the litigation strategy. It found that Lage had notice of the deficiencies in the claims and failed to take corrective action. By contrast, the court declined to sanction other attorneys, including James Wesley Christian, Elad D. Botwin, Gerard P. Fox, Luis E. Suarez, and Patricia Melville Suarez. It found no evidence that these attorneys acted in bad faith or were responsible for the challenged conduct, noting that some had limited roles or joined the case after key decisions had been made.

Sanctions award. The court awarded $475,515.08 in sanctions, representing excess attorney fees incurred by Disney’s counsel, including Hueston Hennigan LLP and Willenken LLP. The award covered fees associated with motion practice, discovery disputes, and summary judgment proceedings attributable to the misconduct. In calculating the award, the court found the requested hourly rates reasonable and applied a limited reduction for block-billed entries. It also clarified that the sanctions would not result in double recovery, given separate fee awards obtained by Disney on certain claims.

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-03772-CBM-E.

Judge: Marshall, C.

Attorneys: Ashley Morris (Litchfield Cavo LLP) for Buck Goodday Woodall. Peter M. Shimamoto (Willenken LLP) for The Walt Disney Co.

Companies: The Walt Disney Co.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright CaliforniaNews TradeSecrets GCNNews