Director Paul Hunter, an established music video artisan whos begun diversifying into the spot arena, is at the center of a dispute between F.M. Rocks, Santa Monica, and bicoastal HSI Productions. The contentious battle has escalated to Los Angeles Superior Court where a trial was scheduled to get underway as SHOOT went to press.
For information on F.M. Rocks lawsuit against HSI, SHOOT accessed and had to rely primarily on public court records. A SHOOT request to interview Hunter had been denied. SHOOT touched base briefly with F.M. Rocks president Craig Fanning, who expressed confidence over the merits of his case but said he wouldnt discuss the matter publicly without attorney approval. Fanning said hed consult his legal counsel and get
back to SHOOT. At press time, SHOOT had not yet heard from Fanning or his legal representative.
HSI president Stavros Merjos talked to SHOOT about the litigation, largely reiterating contentions that were delineated in the paper trail on file at L.A. Superior Court. But in response to specific legal questions, he deferred to his in-house attorney Randy Winograd who declined comment, saying it would be inappropriate for him to make any public remarks at this juncture, with a trial pending. (Outside legal counsel is actually handling the case for HSI.)
Sifting through hundreds of pages of court documents, SHOOT isolated some of the key claims and counterclaims in the litigation. F.M. Rocks firmly contended in court records that it had Hunter under contract for music videos when he departed to join HSI in 97. F.M. Rocks stated that it had a yearlong contract with Hunter that expired in early January 97, but carried an option for an additional year that the company could unilaterally exercise. F.M. Rocks also said that it properly picked up that option, informing Hunter verbally that their working relationship on music videos was being extended through January 3, 98.
F.M. Rocks legal counsel further pointed out in the court filing that Hunter helmed an additional 11 music videos for the company after that pacts extension. Then in March 97, according to F.M. Rocks, Hunter uncharacteristically began refusing directing jobs and later that month his management company contacted the production house and requested a copy of the directors contract. Shortly thereafter, according to the plaintiffs time-line, Hunter repudiated his contract with F.M. Rocks and began directing videos for the defendant, HSI. F.M. Rocks contended that HSI interfered with F.M. Rocks agreement and induced Hunter to breach that contract in spring of 97.
HSIs Defense
Responding to the charge, HSIs legal counsel, as reflected in court records, acknowledged that Hunters original contract with F.M. Rocks allowed for the possibility that the term might be extended for an additional one year. But HSI attorneys claimed that F.M. Rocks did not meet conditions required to make that option valid. For one, HSI stated that F.M. Rocks did not exercise the option prior to the original agreements expiration date and thus the contract expired by its own terms on January 3, 97. Following that alleged expiration, Hunter, according to an HSI-filed court document, initiated contact with more than half a dozen production companies to discuss the possibility of coming on board to direct music videos and TV commercials. Hunter and Merjos first met on or about Feb. 21, 97, stated the HSI document which further related that Hunter decided to enter into a contract with HSI in April 97. Sometime around May 97, Hunter stopped directing clips for F.M. Rocks and started working for HSI.
Contending that the agreement between F.M. Rocks and Hunter was not in existence after January 3, 97, HSI attorneys stated in court records that accordingly HSI could not have interfered with the contract since HSI did not have contact with Hunter until well after that date.
In a conversation with SHOOT, Merjos added that the option on Hunter was never upped properly by F.M. Rocks. He said that any notification that the option was being re-upped had to be made in writing, a contention also articulated by HSI attorneys in company court filings.
However, F.M. Rocks asserted in court records that its oral notice to Hunter satisfied terms of the agreement and that the option was properly and legally exercised.
A Question Of Performance
HSI further contended that F.M. Rocks option for an additional year of Hunters services was contingent on professional performance by both parties to the F.M. Rocks contract, and on a morals clause that entitled either party to terminate in the event of disreputable conduct on eithers part.
Part of HSIs defense is that F.M. Rocks allegedly failed to pay vendors in a timely manner, thus providing justification for Hunter to be excused from working under the agreement and nullifying F.M. Rocks right to exercise the contract option.
F.M. Rocks refuted that argument, contending that the issue of supposedly untimely payments to vendors (because record labels were not paying F.M. Rocks on time) is irrelevant. HSI cannot claim that F.M. Rocks should lose a year of Hunters services, and millions of dollars, because of alleged payment problems that were unrelated to Hunter, and of which Hunter knew long prior to joining F.M. Rocks in the first place, read an F.M. Rocks court filing. The document went on to state that because the contract grants F.M. Rocks the right to exercise an option, the language referring to professional conduct necessarily means that F.M. Rocks has the discretion to determine, based upon Hunters performance during the initial one-year term, whether or not F.M. Rocks will extend the agreement. In essence, F.M. Rocks legal counsel contended that the contract extension hinged on the performance of Hunter, not F.M. Rocks, since the company had a unilateral option.
HSIs Merjos disagreed, contending to SHOOT that F.M. Rocks performance-or alleged lack thereof-is relevant to the case. Merjos said that F.M. Rocks was negligent in their contract to begin with. They werent handling production well, crews werent getting paid. As a result, he [Hunter] wasnt able to get the crew people he wanted.
Directors POV
In a Dec.97 deposition, Hunter contended that FM Rocks was not performing in a professional manner. It was starting to get to a point where people-my clients, the labels that I was working for, were telling me that they didnt want to work directly-didnt want to do any production through F.M. Rocks. When asked for examples, Hunter could only provide one during his deposition: Rap artist Sean Puffy Combs of Bad Boy Entertainment.
However, the Combs example was also cited by F.M. Rocks legal counsel as corroboration that Hunter realized he was working under a valid year-long contract extension. F.M. Rocks related that in Feb. 97 (after it allegedly exercised the option on Hunters contract), Combs told Hunter that he wanted him to direct his next video, Hypnotize-but Combs didnt want F.M. Rocks to produce the clip. According to an F.M. Rocks court filing, Hunter, rather than producing the video with another company and apparently knowing that he was still under contract, insisted that Combs use F.M. Rocks.
HSI contended, though, that any F.M. Rocks-produced work directed by Hunter after Jan. 3, 97, should not be construed as acceptance that the contract option had been validly exercised. Hunter did not direct [additional video work] after expiration pursuant to any exercise of the option but rather only on an at-will basis, read a court document filed by HSI attorneys.
Meanwhile, the rumor mill on this case has started to build in recent weeks, with wildly fluctuating amounts being bandied about as to how much F.M. Rocks is supposedly seeking in monetary damages. Speculation was that F.M. Rocks was claiming as much as $5 million.
According to a court document, F.M. Rocks estimated that it lost in excess of $2 million as a result of the defendants conduct. That estimate was calculated by multiplying the average budget for Hunters videos as of May 97 by the expected number of clips he would have directed for F.M. Rocks during the remainder of the alleged contract extension. The estimate also included an amount for income that would have been derived through the trickle-down concept as well as the increased prestige that F.M. Rocks would have enjoyed as a result of having Hunter on its roster of directors. Finally, the estimate also took into account an amount for fees that would likely have been realized through directors referred to F.M. Rocks by Hunter.
The alluded-to trickle down concept was defined by F.M. Rocks legal counsel as work intended for Hunter possibly being diverted to other company directors. The plaintiff contended that if Hunter had stayed, then record labels may have asked for Paul Hunter to direct a video-and if he were not available, then another F.M. Rocks director may have gotten the job.
Wheels In Motion
With the L.A. Superior Court trial in the offing, legal jockeying for what is and isnt admissible was well underway. For example, HSIs legal team had filed several motions in limine (Latin for beginning), requesting that presiding Judge Irving Feffer rule that certain areas be off limits in that they were not germane to the case. These included a defendant motion that F.M. Rocks be precluded from introducing evidence, argument or otherwise referring to alleged instances of solicitation by HSI of music video directors other than Paul Hunter.
Another HSI motion in limine also asked the judge to preclude any plaintiff attempt to present, raise or introduce during trial any evidence of or reference to an indemnity agreement between HSI and Hunter. When asked by SHOOT about the indemnity-an issue which entails whether or not HSI had agreed to indemnify Hunter against any legal liabilities-Merjos said he generally wasnt in a position to answer questions regarding legal motions and detailed aspects of the case. He referred SHOOT to HSIs aforementioned in-house lawyer Winograd who declined comment.
A veteran legal expert not involved in this case but requesting anonymity noted that in a business where disputes have been known to arise between or even among production companies over directors, its rare that such disagreements end up having to be resolved in a court trial. Negotiation, compromise and settlement between the affected parties normally preclude any extensive and costly litigation, he observed. The feelings have to run pretty deep to get to this point.
Apparently, one of the few points, if not the only point upon which plaintiff and defendant can agree is that Hunter is a valued talent. He first established himself in music videos at F.M. Rocks. And Merjos noted that that the director has recently transitioned successfully into spots, citing several shoots, most notably an HSI-produced Coca-Cola job for Edge Creative, Santa Monica.
In addition to the L.A. Superior Court case, Hunter and F.M. Rocks have filed actions against each other before the American Arbitration Association. At press time, SHOOT could not ascertain the status of those arbitration proceedings.
