Court of Petty Appeals: Authors of Rejected Sketches v. Libel 118

Authors of Rejected Sketches

v.

Libel 118

78 U.Va 12 (2025)

Draft opinion prepared by Kelly Scrivner ’26, Appellant Pro Se.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

This year’s Libel Show was a “massive success.”[1] At least, if we are to believe the Law Weekly’s reporting. But this court is now presented with claims from members of the Libel Show who argue their contributions to the show went unrecognized and underutilized. As funny as this year’s show was, Plaintiff Authors of Rejected Sketches argue their sketches were much funnier than what we saw in this year’s show, and they deserve acknowledgment for their contributions to Libel 118.[2] For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we urge the Court to grant the Authors’ claim, at least in part if not in whole

I.              We Cannot Enter the Room Where It Happens

We begin by pulling back the curtain. The Libel Show is not merely a weekend fever dream for our washed-up theater kids. Before echoes of song and dance permeate the halls of the law school comes a semester of writing. Each fall, the show’s Head Writers recruit the law school’s People Who Think They’re Funny. Weekly, they huddle in the Writers’ Room, conspiring about ways to turn our collective complaining into laughter. With the arrival of spring, the show’s Directors recruit the law school’s People Who Think They Can Act and Sing. The sketches are selected, the show is cast, and rehearsals begin.

But this Court is unable to pull the curtain back farther. Plaintiff Authors would have us compel discovery of the show’s entire selection process, but they have failed to overcome the Libel Show’s compelling interest in protecting its lore and maintaining its secrecy. While the Writers Room is open to all, with expectations of mild confidentiality to protect against spoilers, the process of selecting and casting sketches and songs is shrouded in mystery.[3] In response to Plaintiff Authors’ motion, Defendant Libel 118 asserts work product doctrine, Producer-Director privilege, and the history and tradition of “Quartet Immunity.” Whatever that means. But this Court does not need to attempt to unpack or even understand these defenses, because the evidence submitted by Plaintiff Authors is sufficient to dispose of their claims.

Before we consider the merits, some uncontested facts. First, the parties stipulate that last year’s Libel show was too weird, too long, and too inconsistent.[4] Defendant Libel 118 reminds us that one of their primary goals was to make this year’s show shorter. They accomplished this, and we applaud them. Second, Amici Head Writers inform us that approximately seventy-five sketches, songs, and videos were submitted for this year’s show. This is, objectively, a lot of content. With the scene now set, we turn to the merits.

II.           We Cannot Establish Whether Plaintiffs’ Sketches Would Have Been Funnier

Plaintiff Authors submit their rejected sketches and songs to this Court and ask us to declare them funnier than this year’s Libel Show. We agree that the rejected sketches lean into the silly and absurd: a Tylenol-fueled journey through time, a vision of an off-the-rails NLG meeting, a K-Drama in the Sidley Austin Café, and even a mini-Les Misérables-style battle between the National Guard and the Patrons of the Free Food Table. We could go on.

But we do not have a screening room to review the performance of the hypothetical. Sure, Plaintiff Authors’ sketches are silly on paper, but there is no way for us to know whether they would have been funnier than what we saw on stage. Defendant Libel 118 claims there is only so much talent to work with at the law school, and there is no way to know the true value of a sketch without casting and performing it. For example, a sketch like Little Miss UVA was funny because of the cast’s inspired performances of Paul Mahoney, Scott Beardsley, and the infamous RFK, Jr. Plaintiff. Authors agree and request that we order The Libel Show cast and perform the rejected sketches. Although this Court appreciates the absurd (see Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 3), we refuse to order the production of an Alternate Libel Show. The law school can only tolerate one weekend per year of watching washed-up theater kids dance, sing, and act. A half-hearted performance of rejected sketches, though petty, would not provide Plaintiff Authors the relief they seek.

We are left with the hypothetical. And with the hypothetical alone, there is no way for us to know whether Plaintiff Authors’ sketches would have been funnier than what we saw on stage. This claim is not justiciable, and we remand with orders to dismiss.

III.        We Can Grant Plaintiff Authors’ Request for Recognition

But we are not done. Plaintiff Authors bring another claim. Those authors who were not lucky enough to have a sketch or song selected for this year’s show were left out of the Libel 118 Playbill. None of Libel 118’s defenses is sufficient to overcome the Authors’ interest in being recognized for their creativity and hard work. What’s more, Amici Head Writers inform us that it is the historical practice of The Libel Show to credit every person who attended Writers’ Room and every person who submitted a sketch or a song in the Playbill as part of the “Writing Team,” regardless of whose content was selected for the show. For some reason, Libel 118 deviated from this historical practice. Amici Head Writers argue this is a dangerous precedent to set, for it would be impossible to track every minuscule contribution to the sketches and songs that make their way into the show. Ideas from Writers’ Room freely make their way into sketches. Jokes from rejected sketches are incorporated into the accepted.[5] Because the Libel Show’s content selection process remains shrouded in secrecy and unavailable for scrutiny, Plaintiff Authors argue that the historical inclusive practice of crediting all the show’s writers is the fairest and most efficient way to ensure that everyone is given the recognition they deserve. We agree.

Plaintiff Authors seek prospective and retrospective relief. Prospective relief is easy. Even though most of the show’s writers were 3Ls and will not be here to contribute to Libel Shows of the future, this court rejects City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. The Libel Show shall credit every contributing writer in perpetuity. But retrospective relief is not so easy. Damages are off the table, for Defendant Libel 118 has no money. Printing a new Playbill would be a pointless waste of shiny paper and color ink that will be immediately thrown away. However, this very opinion is printed on paper, and no one would dare throw it away. This Court stands ready to offer our pages for the petty relief these authors seek.

Plaintiff Authors acknowledge their desire for recognition is petty. Their claim for recognition is happily granted.

It is so ordered.

The Writing Team of Libel 118 

Miller Bacon, Alex Baselga, Bradley Berklich, Adi Buddi, Cassidy Buenz, Will Chambers, Francesca Clemente, David Del Terzo, Jimmy Donlon, Grace Elman, Nicole Emory, Liz Gaccione, Mallory Garner, Morgan Gibbs, Pietro Guarisco, Mark Graff, Marilyn Hajj, Lydia Ho, Abigail Justis, Ryan Keane, Steve Kim, Jonathan Lauria, Brad Lewinksi, Errick Mah, Joshua McKinney, Greg McKnight, Robert Miron, Matthew Nino, Tim Patawaran, Emmy Pilant, Thomas Ross, Kathleen Samuelson, Monica Sebastian, Kelly Scrivner, Delaney Sniffen, Maggie Walker, Isabelle Wilcox, and Jacob Zahalsky.

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2026/3/25/wtx1wtbmh3plo2pgs6z7qj53pjvie8

[2] Plaintiff Authors also argue there were too many songs in this year’s show. But we like the songs, and per Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “We do what we want.” Authors’ claim of “too many songs” is therefore dismissed.

[3] Plaintiff Authors attempted to introduce evidence from a book-length Word document known as “The Libel Bible,” but its authenticity could not be verified.

[4] Libel 117 was four hours long. It goes without saying, that is too damn long.

[5] See, e.g., Professor Brown at hot yoga.