Court hears appeals on Coppola case

Little indication how ruling will be made in 'Pinocchio' project

The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns.

Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a legal claim against Coppola’s “Pinocchio” project.

Warner attorney Fred Cohen argued the studio had a reasonable belief it had a right to any Coppola “Pinocchio” project, and it wrote the letter to Columbia as a prelude to litigation. The trial judge, Cohen said, should have ruled that the Warner letter was privileged and barred Coppola’s suit.

But Coppola’s attorney, Robert Chapman, argued there was no litigation privilege, and if there were, Warners waived that defense by failing to raise it at the proper time.

After two years in development at Warners, Coppola took a revised script for a live-action “Pinocchio” to Columbia in 1993. When the Col deal fell apart a year later, Coppola sued Warners, charging that it had interfered with his attempt to have the film made at Columbia.

In 1998, an L.A. Superior Court jury awarded Coppola $20 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages. The trial judge set aside the punitives, finding there was no evidence of malice. Warners appealed the $20 million verdict, and Coppola appealed the judge’s rejection of the $60 million verdict.

On Friday, the appellate panel seemed particularly concerned about the waiver issue. At one point, Warner’s Cohen was told, “Mr. Chapman has argued forcefully that if you had a privilege, you waived it. Please explain why there was no waiver.”

As for Coppola’s appeal, the panel questioned Chapman on whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to support the punitive damage award of $60 million. This prompted him to recount the history of alleged animus between Coppola and former Warner heads Bob Daly and Terry Semel.

The Court of Appeal has many options. It could leave the judgment alone — affirm the jury’s award of $20 million and the trial judge’s rejection of $60 million in punitives; it could either restore all to or take away everything from Coppola; or it could send all or part of the case back to the trial judge.

The appellate court must rule within 90 days of oral argument.

More Film

  • Sundance: Lionsgate Nabs U.K. Rights for

    Sundance: Lionsgate Nabs U.K. Rights for 'Colette' (EXCLUSIVE)

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • 'Hangover' Producer Scott Budnick Forms Good

    'Hangover' Producer Scott Budnick Forms Good Films, Endeavor is Lead Investor (EXCLUSIVE)

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Supreme Court

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg on #MeToo Movement, Her SNL Parody, and Supreme Court Retirement

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

    'Jumanji' Leads International Box Office, Hits $768 Million Worldwide

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • 'Phantom Thread,' 'Darkest Hour' Shine as

    'Phantom Thread,' 'Darkest Hour' Shine as Oscar Nominations Loom

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • 'Jumanji' Stays Strong, Topping '12 Strong,'

    'Jumanji' Stays Strong, Topping '12 Strong,' 'Den of Thieves' With $20 Million

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

  • Colette

    Sundance: 'Colette' Sells to 30West, Bleecker Street

    The California Court of Appeal gave little indication how it will rule in Francis Ford Coppola’s “Pinocchio” case, but questions from the three-judge panel Friday certainly indicated its concerns. Oral argument centered on whether the litigation privilege applied to a letter Warner Bros. sent to Coppola and Columbia Pictures informing them that it had a […]

More From Our Brands

Access exclusive content