Producer Sues Netflix, Saying Hard Drive From World War II Spy Thriller ‘Fortitude’ Was Stolen After Delivery for Screening

A producer associated with the World War II spy thriller Fortitude has sued Netflix in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleging the streamer bears responsibility for the theft of a hard drive containing the film’s materials after it was delivered to Netflix’s headquarters for screening and possible purchase, according to Deadline. The lawsuit centers on a missing storage device tied to the upcoming title, and it seeks legal relief stemming from what the producer describes as wrongful loss and unauthorized access.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, characterizes the hard drive as part of the pitching and review process for the film, stating that the materials were provided to Netflix so the company could evaluate the project. Netflix’s role, as described in the suit, goes beyond being a passive recipient, with the producer alleging Netflix accepted delivery for internal review and then failed to safeguard the device.

Deadline reports that the case is connected to the production and distribution pipeline for Fortitude, a World War II espionage project that the producer says was in development as a potential Netflix acquisition. The lawsuit adds that after delivery, the hard drive was stolen, creating exposure for film content intended for limited review rather than public release.

The suit arrives amid broader industry concerns about data security and controlled access during film and television evaluations. When studios and producers circulate reels, scripts, or rough cuts to potential buyers, they typically do so under confidentiality expectations, with the practical goal of testing viability while limiting distribution. In this case, the alleged theft is framed as breaking that controlled environment and forcing the producer into court to address alleged responsibility and damages.

Netflix has not been quoted in the Deadline report describing the filing, and no details from court documents are provided in the summary beyond the allegation that Netflix is responsible for the missing hard drive. The complaint’s specific legal theories, the amount of damages sought, and any requested injunction or other remedies are not included in the available coverage.

As the case proceeds, the litigation is likely to turn on factual questions that can include chain-of-custody practices for digital review media, security controls at Netflix offices, and whether any internal or third-party access contributed to the device leaving authorized custody. The producer will also likely need to show how the missing hard drive relates to alleged unauthorized use or disclosure of the film’s materials.

For creators and companies, the dispute also underscores the tight timelines and high stakes of streaming deals, where a potential buyer may evaluate projects quickly and then decide whether to acquire or pass. If the allegations are borne out, the matter could become a test of how courts evaluate responsibility when production files are shared for evaluation but subsequently go missing. If the allegations are disputed, the case will likely focus on what safeguards were in place and what happened to the hard drive after delivery.

The next procedural step in the dispute would be for the court to accept the filing and for Netflix to respond, typically through a motion or an answer that addresses the claims. Until then, the lawsuit remains an allegation, and no determination of liability has been made in the reporting.