Bakewell said that he “couldn’t know” if his staff put their notes directly in the then-existing draft of the expert report or in a separate document, but “[o]ur practice is to get the information in the report.” 134:10-15.

“With respect to the disclosure obligations, the [advisory committee’s] notes indicate that the requirements should ‘be interpreted broadly’ to encompass ‘any material considered by the expert, from whatever source, that contains factual ingredients’ but to exclude the ‘theories or mental impressions of counsel.’” Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 869 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting advisory committee’s notes for Northern District of California United States District Court the 2010 amendments).

Meta argues, first, that Plaintiffs have not subpoenaed Bakewell or his firm and therefore the only legal basis for production is Rule 26(a)(2), which is limited to facts or data considered by the expert witness.

“[C]ourts apply an ‘objective test’ that defines ‘considered’ as any facts or data on the subject matter learned by the expert at any time before rendering her opinion.” In re Mirena IUD Prods.

Ohio March 20, 2014) (“the Court will require Defendants to submit the notes in question for in camera review before making a decision about whether they can be legitimately characterized as ‘draft reports.’”); Mackay, 742 F.3d at 870 (“materials containing ‘factual ingredients’ are discoverable, while opinion work product is not discoverable”).

Defendants are evidently open to engaging in a process to test the efficacy of the search terms, but their proposal does not offer an alternative to Plaintiffs’ position that the Producing Party provide hit reports containing certain data points.

The Court recognizes that the parties’ messaging platforms used during the course of business (Slack, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, etc.) and mobile devices may contain responsive ESI and accordingly approves the addition of Plaintiffs’ Paragraph 6.

Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to sixty depositions because of “the number of corporate defendants, the technical nature of the infringement, and the vast scale of the alleged misconduct.” ECF No. 257 at 1.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ overall position that exceeding the ten-deposition limit is warranted here given the “complexity of the case[,]” but is mindful of the potential burden on Defendants and the risk that allowing Plaintiffs sixty depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.

If parties are unable to reach an agreement they shall file by April 7, 2025 a joint discovery letter concerning their respective proposals, following the procedure in Section F.5 of the undersigned’s Standing Order.

This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, procedural history, governing law, and arguments made by the parties.

Article III standing requires that the injury to the plaintiff—not their cause of action or the statute under which it arises—have a close relationship to a traditional harm.

And as the plaintiffs seem to concede, the complaint does not adequately allege that the CMI removal would or did aid infringement by anyone other than Meta.

But the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Meta intentionally removed CMI to conceal copyright infringement.

They also allege that Meta took a number of other steps to reduce the likelihood that Llama would generate outputs that would reveal or indicate that copyrighted material was included in training datasets.

New York Court of Appeals , an active member in good standing of the bar of , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac Plaintiffs vice in the Northern District of California representing: in the Daniel M. Hutchinson above-entitled action.

My local co-counsel in this case is , an attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 239458 within the State of California.

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said bar is attached to this application.

I have been granted pro hac vice admission by the Court _______ times in the 12 months preceding this application.

Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co- counsel designated in the application will constitute notice to the party.

RICHARD KADREY, et al., Individual and Representative Plaintiffs,

6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, Jacqueline Woodson, Andrew Sean Greer, Rachel Louise Snyder, David Henry Hwang, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Laura Lippman, Matthew Klam, Junot Díaz, Lysa Terkeurst and Christopher Farnsworth (“Plaintiffs”); and Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to the following: WHEREAS, the expert discovery deadline is presently February 26, 2025, ECF No. 238; WHEREAS, to accommodate deposition scheduling, medical-related issues, and travel conflicts with certain experts, the Parties agree to seek the Court’s leave to extend the expert discovery deadline to Friday, March 7, which is nine days after the current February 26 expert discovery deadline, to allow for the depositions of Ms. Barbera Frederiksen-Cross, Dr. Daniel

Spulber, Dr. Michael Sinkinson, and Dr. Jonathan Krein, as well as the supplemental deposition of Dr. Crista Lopes; WHEREAS, there have been two prior modifications to the expert discovery schedule, the first being the extension of the expert discovery deadline until February 26, 2025, ECF No. 238, and the second being the Court’s accepting a February 10, 2025 deadline for Defendant’s rebuttal to the Krein Expert Report, ECF No. 406; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and through Plaintiffs and Defendant, as represented by their undersigned counsel and subject to the approval of the Court, that the expert discovery deadline is extended to March 7, 2025.

No other deadlines are modified by this stipulation, nor does this stipulation affect the rights of any party to seek relief with respect to other discovery or scheduling issues, including any issues that may be raised at the February 27, 2025 hearing, or any expert discovery or reports.

United States District Judge

My local co-counsel in this case is , an attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 314267 within the State of California.

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said bar is attached to this application.

I have been granted pro hac vice admission by the Court _______ times in the 12 months preceding this application.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Northern District of California United States District Court I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules.

Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co- counsel designated in the application will constitute notice to the party.

In ECF No. 383 the Court denied without prejudice the motions to seal at ECF Nos. 311, 320, 322, 326, 338, 358 and 362.

The Court stated that Meta shall either file all of the material at issue in the public record, or it shall refile narrowly tailored motions to seal, within 14 days.

Meta refiled its motion to seal in ECF No. 409, which the Court granted in ECF No. 414.

For all of the documents that were filed provisionally under seal in connection with ECF Nos. 311, 320, 322, 326, 338, 358 and 362 that were not included in Meta’s motion to seal at ECF No. 409, the Court ORDERS the parties to file them in the public record within seven days.

United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California United States District Court

The bar for an in camera review is relatively low: The plaintiffs only need to present “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person … that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989); see also United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 800 (9th Cir. 2015).

The plaintiffs also suggest that the exception applies broadly to conduct that is unlawful but not criminal or fraudulent.

But even taking a narrower view—that the exception applies only to criminal or fraudulent conduct—in camera review is appropriate here.

At a minimum, the plaintiffs have shown that the crime-fraud exception could apply to Meta’s alleged distribution (by seeding) of copyrighted material, and that in camera review might reveal evidence to establish that it does.

Meta is ordered to submit the documents identified in Exhibit J to the Pritt declaration (as well as those in Appendix A to the plaintiffs’ motion and in Exhibit A to the parties’ joint letter brief on the crime-fraud exception submitted to Judge Hixson) for in camera review.

In response to this Court's January 9, 2025 Order Regarding Meta's Sealing Requests,

5 Administrative Motion and the supporting Declaration of Michelle Woodhouse, and finding good

Redacted highlig� portions re: Search Terms (Dkt. 321-2) Woodhouse Ex. 4-Exhibit 2 to Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Choudhury Deposition (Dkt. 334-6)

re Privilege Logs (Business Communications) (Dkt. 353-1) Redacted highlighted portions Woodhouse Ex. 6-Exhibit B to Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Privilege Logs (Business Communications) (Dkt. 353-2) Woodhouse Ex. 7 -Exhibit E to Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Additional Deposition Time (Dkt. 354-5)

re: Privilege Logs (Crime-Fraud) (Dkt. 355-1) Redacted highlighted portions Woodhouse Ex. 9-Joint Discovery Letter Briefre:

William H. Orrick Date Filed: January 13, 2023 Individual and Representative Plaintiffs, Trial Date: None Set v. STABILITY AI LTD., a UK corporation; STABILITY AI, INC., a Delaware corporation; DEVIANTART, INC., a Delaware ...

Re: Dkt. No. 405 The Court sets the following schedule for briefing on motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert opinion: • The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is due March 10, 2025.

• The plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, their opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment, their oppositions to Meta’s motions to exclude, and their own motions to exclude are due April 7, 2025, in one brief.

• Meta’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its oppositions to the plaintiffs’ motions to exclude are due April 17, 2025, in one brief.

There will be no replies in support of motions to exclude.

United States District Judge

Nonetheless, if the fine-tuning datasets contain additional copies of copyrighted works, those are additional allegedly infringing copies that were used to perform a somewhat different training task.

None of those topics have anything to do with RFP 118.

Accordingly, as discussed at the hearing, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a supplemental joint discovery letter brief concerning this RFP by December 23, 2024.1

However, for the 15 custodians the Court agrees that custodial files regarding Llama and removing copyright management information from literary works are responsive to this RFP and relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Meta to search the custodial files for its 15 custodians and produce documents and communications regarding Llama and stripping or removal of CMI from literary works.

“That the document as a whole addresses predominantly business matters does not negate the privilege as to the portion containing requests for legal advice.” United States v. Chevron Corp., 1996 WL 444597, *2 (N.D. Cal.

“Thus, despite the overall nature of the document, the client may assert the attorney-client privilege over isolated sentences or paragraphs within a document.” Id.; see also In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, 2024 WL 3381029, *6 (N.D. Cal.

However, the Court agrees with Meta that Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual basis for in camera review of these documents, let alone to simply overrule Meta’s claims of privilege.

Plaintiffs’ crime-fraud argument based on the CDAFA and the DMCA overlaps with Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which would add those two claims to the case.

Moving across the board on three sets of rogs in a single joint discovery letter brief was not a great idea because it has resulted in many of Plaintiffs’ arguments being perfunctory.

Given that most of the risks Meta identified in the Llama 2 and 3 papers had nothing to do with intellectual property, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately explained the relevance and proportionality of that information.

Rog 16 asked Meta to “[s]tate all facts on which you base Your contention that Your conduct constitutes fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107).” Rog 17 asked: “If You or any of Your employees and/or agents intend to assert the advice of counsel defense, state any and all facts upon which You or any of your employees and/or agents intend to rely on for that contention.” Plaintiffs state that Meta limits its responses to Llamas 1-3.

My local co-counsel in this case is , an attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 314267 within the State of California.

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said bar is attached to this application.

I have been granted pro hac vice admission by the Court _______ times in the 12 months preceding this application.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Northern District of California United States District Court I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules.

Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co- counsel designated in the application will constitute notice to the party.