Bit Parts

Justin Timberlake Appeals After His Anti-SLAPP Motion Fails to Stick In Documentary Deal Litigation

What's the line between being involved in protected First Amendment speech when creating a documentary film as contrasted to involvement in business negotiations for the production? According to court documents, in 2012 documentary filmmaker John Urbano and music star Justin Timberlake entered into a joint-venture agreement for Urbano "to shoot and edit" a documentary about the making of Timberlake's album The 20/20 Experience. Urbano, who says he agreed to accept lower-than-usual directing and editing fees in exchange for a higher subsequent payment, "presented" a final cut to Timberlake in 2014. But in 2022 a lawyer for the artist informed Urbano that Timberlake now wanted a documentary of his "entire career." After registering the copyright in the 20/20 Experience documentary footage, Urbano sued Timberlake in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint includes allegations of breach of the joint-venture agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a declaration of ownership of the documentary's copyright. Timberlake responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, under Calif. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, to strike Urbano's lawsuit on the ground that Timberlake had been engaged in free speech activity connected to the documentary. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha noted: "Urbano claims Timberlake failed to honor the terms of their joint venture and implied contract, including by failing to contribute his 'knowledge and skills in the entertainment industry [to] market and negotiat[e] backend deals[.]' … Timberlake argues he contributed to the production of the Documentary by 'assembling a production team, financing and budgeting the film, … retaining Urbano as a director and editor, opening up his recording sessions to filming, shepherding … production, [and] acting as the featured performer[.]" But District Judge Aenlle-Rocha determined in denying Timberlake's anti-SLAPP motion: "Even accepting as true that any of these discrete acts are sufficient to constitute an act in furtherance of speech, none are the 'wrong complained of' in the [first amended complaint]. … The wrong complained of here is an alleged failure to negotiate a backend deal for Urbano to be compensated, not conduct in furtherance of speech in the public interest." Urbano v. Timberlake, 2:22-cv-04512. Timberlake filed his notice of appeal on Feb. 5. The opening brief in the appeal was due by March 18. Urbano's answering brief is due by April 17.