Fox Files Notice to Appeal Contempt Ruling

Complaining of “unfair” treatment, 20th Century Fox Film Corp. says it has filed notice to appeal its recent federal conviction of criminal contempt.

“Every once in a while, you do run up against an issue in your business life which is truly a matter of principle,” Jonathan Dolgen, president of the studio’s parent, Fox Inc., said in an interview Friday.

Complaining about the Justice Department prosecution and rulings by the federal trial judge in New York, Dolgen added: “This way of behaving is just flat-out wrong, so we are going to spend our time appealing.”

After a four-day non-jury trial, U.S. District Judge Edmund L. Palmieri last week found the Los Angeles entertainment giant guilty of contempt of a 1951 consent judgment prohibiting “block booking” of films. Block booking is a practice in which a film distributor forces theaters to show less desirable movies to obtain bigger box-office attractions.

Ten years ago, under different ownership, Fox pleaded no contest to a contempt charge involving block booking and was fined $25,000. Last week, Palmieri assessed a maximum $500,000 fine.

What the firm is being “chastised” for, said Dolgen, is two “isolated incidents involving acts of individuals” during the span of a decade.

‘Complicated, Detailed’ Program

Dolgen said Fox actually is being held responsible for “vicarious criminal contempt--a strange and alien concept,” adding: “We are deemed responsible not for our own acts but those of an employee.”

The reference was to one of Fox’s Midwestern branch managers, Leila J. Goldstein, who Dolgen said is no longer employed at the company. She was found guilty and fined $5,000 in the case.

He said the Justice Department pursued the case despite the company’s “complicated and detailed” program to ensure compliance with the law against block booking.

As Fox previously stated, Dolgen noted that the court refused to let the company give evidence of that compliance program, which “flat-out deprived us of any defense,” and refused a jury trial for either defendant.