A legal battle over the financial rights to a beloved children's television series has reached a significant milestone. On June 28, 2024, William S. Nye, better known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, filed a complaint against The Walt Disney Company in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. The case centers around allegations that Disney and its subsidiary Buena Vista Television, LLC have failed to properly account for and pay Nye and his co-plaintiffs their due share of profits from the long-running educational show.
The dispute dates back to March 31, 1993, when Nye and his partners entered into an agreement with Buena Vista to produce and distribute "Bill Nye the Science Guy." According to the agreement, Buena Vista was to pay plaintiffs 50 percent of all contractually defined net profits. However, complications arose in 2008 when Buena Vista informed plaintiffs they had been overpaid due to an accounting error and demanded repayment. This led Nye and his partners to suspect that Buena Vista had been underreporting profits for years. After a formal audit request in January 2014 revealed alleged discrepancies amounting to millions of dollars in underreported revenue, Nye filed suit on August 28, 2017.
The litigation unfolded in three phases before different judges. Initially, most of the plaintiffs' causes of action were summarily adjudicated as time-barred based on the accrual doctrine and an incontestability clause within their agreement. Discovery sanctions were also imposed against Nye for failing to comply with court-ordered document production related to a pre-litigation audit. In the second phase, after an Evidence Code section 402 hearing (section 402 hearing), it was determined that plaintiffs' interpretation of "Video Device" revenue was inconsistent with other terms of their agreement. Finally, just before the accounting trial commenced, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all remaining causes of action without prejudice to pursue an immediate appeal.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that several substantive and procedural errors occurred during the proceedings. They contended that their claims should not be time-barred by either contractual or statutory limitations periods due to continuous accrual doctrine exceptions like discovery rule or continuing violation doctrine. Additionally, they challenged the trial court's interpretation limiting their net profits by categorizing SVOD (Subscription Video On Demand) and EST (Electronic Sell Through) revenues as "Video Device" revenue subject only to a 20 percent royalty inclusion in gross receipts rather than full revenue reporting.
Plaintiffs sought reversal of adverse rulings on summary adjudication and section 402 hearings while requesting reinstatement of dismissed causes along with appropriate compensatory damages for fraudulently concealed profits plus punitive damages where applicable.
The appellate court affirmed lower court judgments citing lackluster extrinsic evidence presented by plaintiffs about mutual intent regarding non-existent digital distribution methods at contract inception; hence no credibility issues warranted jury intervention per established contract law principles focusing solely upon written terms unless ambiguity exists requiring factual determination through witness credibility assessment.
Representing William S. Nye et al., attorneys Patricia L. Glaser from Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro argued vigorously against defendants represented by Lucia E. Coyoca from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp before Judges Dalila C Lyons David J Cowan Kevin C Brazile under Case ID B326567 Los Angeles County Superior Court No P0878738