Universal City Studios, Illumination Entertainment and filmmaker Mike White asked a federal judge in California to throw out a writer's lawsuit alleging they copied his unpublished screenplay for the 2023 animated film Migration. The defendants' motion, filed Monday, attacks the complaint on two basic copyright-law fronts: access and substantial similarity.
Why the defendants say dismissal is warranted
The defendants make two principal arguments.
1) No plausible access. The complaint must plausibly allege that the makers of Migration had a realistic opportunity to see the plaintiff's unpublished screenplay before making the movie. According to the defendants, the complaint fails to make that showing. Without credible allegations that someone connected to the film had access to the plaintiff's script, the copying claim is legally weak at the threshold.
2) No substantial similarity. Even if access were assumed, copyright infringement requires more than thematic overlap or shared high-level ideas. The defendants tell the court that Migration and the unpublished screenplay are not substantially similar in the protectable expression that copyright protects. That argument targets the complaint's core factual allegations about how the two works supposedly match up.
What we know about the parties and case
The motion tests the baseline pleading standards for copyright suits over films and other creative works. Courts frequently dismiss complaints that rely on broad idea-level similarities or speculative theories of access. The central question the judge will resolve on the motion to dismiss is whether the complaint, as pleaded, lets the case move beyond the pleadings into discovery where access and similarity can be examined with evidence.
If the court grants the motion, the complaint will be dismissed—possibly with leave to amend, depending on how the judge frames the deficiencies. If the court denies dismissal, the case will proceed to discovery, where the plaintiff will seek concrete evidence of access and point-by-point comparisons of protectable material. The public summaries do not report whether the defendants requested dismissal with or without leave to amend.
The defendants' motion rests on familiar copyright defenses: no plausible access and no substantial similarity. How the court evaluates the complaint's factual specificity will determine whether the dispute proceeds into discovery or ends at the pleading stage.