Legal Clash Over “The Pitt”: Crichton Estate vs. HBO Max

The California Court of Appeals, Division 3, received a brief from HBO Max’s “The Pitt” team, completing briefing on appeal of lower-court ruling favoring Sherri Crichton, Michael Crichton’s widow. No oral-argument date is set.

Deadline Hollywood

In August 2024 the estate sued, alleging “The Pitt” is a derivative of the 1994-2009 series “ER” and that the “Freeze Provision” gives Michael Crichton approval rights over any work linked to a failed “ER” reboot. HBO Max and Gibson Dunn argue the agreement only covers “publishing relating to ER.” The series is part of Warner Bros Discovery, whose $111 billion sale to Paramount Skydance raises the financial stakes.

Deadline Hollywood

Gibson Dunn argues the court “improperly diluted” the anti-SLAPP standard, that the 1994 agreement does not give Crichton approval over future ideas, and that the Freeze Provision cannot block unrelated works.

Deadline Hollywood

The estate contends “The Pitt” exists only because an “ER” reboot collapsed, making it a derivative work, and that the 1994 contract gives Crichton authority to block projects linked to the original series.

Deadline Hollywood

No oral-argument date is set, leaving uncertainty. The parties dispute the Freeze Provision’s scope, and the estate’s filing omits the contract’s full text.

Deadline Hollywood

The appellate court will schedule oral arguments and issue a ruling that could confirm or overturn the lower-court decision, affecting the series’ production and Warner Bros Discovery’s valuation.

Deadline Hollywood

• “Plaintiff’s expansive interpretation of the term ‘derivative works’ would extend the Freeze Provision so broadly as to impede Defendants’ ability to develop their own original ideas that have nothing to do with ER, simply because those ideas happened to be connected at one point in time with an abandoned ER reboot,” — Gibson Dunn brief

Deadline Hollywood

• “The trial court’s improper dilution of the anti-SLAPP standard necessarily informed its denial of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion … all because the trial court concluded, in some general sense, that Plaintiff’s claims were ‘not totally meritless,’” — Ilissa Samplin & Ted Boutrous Jr.

Deadline Hollywood

• “Even if the contract were ambiguous (it isn’t), and even if Plaintiff’s reading were not patently absurd (it is), Plaintiff’s claim would still fail because Plaintiff fails to carry its burden of presenting evidence that the Freeze Provision should be interpreted in the manner it proposes,” — Ilissa Samplin & Ted Boutrous Jr.

Deadline Hollywood

• “Nothing in the record suggests that the parties to the 1994 Agreement intended to give Mr. Crichton approval rights over all future original ideas — not found in ER itself — that anyone would happen to come up with when thinking about a proposed ER reboot. The contract gave Mr. Crichton approval rights with regards to ‘publishing relating to ER,’ not shows that have nothing to do with ER.” — Gibson Dunn brief

Deadline Hollywood