This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties.

And although the plaintiffs may have had information regarding Meta’s alleged use of LibGen and removal of CMI earlier than November, they did not unduly delay by waiting to move for leave to amend “until they had sufficient evidence ... upon which they could base claims of wrongful conduct.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 182, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

Meta’s arguments against the merits of the plaintiffs’ new claims “will be better addressed in the context of a fully briefed motion to dismiss” the new complaint.

And the plaintiffs cite testimony by one of Meta’s 30(b)(6) witnesses suggesting that the torrenting protocol that Meta allegedly used required its users to engage in some amount of seeding.

As discussed at the hearing, Meta will make sure it has produced the blocklist (except to the extent it contains privileged information regarding why certain items were or were not on it).

In ECF No. 351, the Court filed a discovery order under seal.

The Court stated that it planned to file a public version of the order and gave the parties seven days to file any proposed redactions.

Meta has filed proposed redactions at ECF No. 364.

The Court is concerned, however, that Meta’s proposed redactions are excessive or entirely unwarranted.

In so doing, Meta shall follow the guidance provided by Judge Chhabria in ECF No. 373.

Pending before the Court are several motions to seal that were filed in connection with discovery disputes.

The Court denies all of these motions without prejudice.

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.

In so doing, Meta shall comply with the guidance provided by Judge Chhabria in ECF No. 373.

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

The possible exception is the document title beginning with the phrase “Fair-Use Lib” that appears in Footnote 5 of the opposition, but even that seems dubious.

It is clear that Meta’s sealing request is not designed to protect against the disclosure of sensitive business information that competitors could use to their advantage.

By the end of today, the parties must file unredacted versions of the motion, opposition, and reply.

If Meta again submits an unreasonably broad sealing request, all materials will simply be unsealed.

Between this sealing request and assertions in Meta’s opposition brief such as “[t]hat document expressly discusses torrents and seeding,” Opp.

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 253155 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.

Within 14 days, petitioners must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d)(1).

Petitioners’ request for leave to file additional briefing (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as unnecessary.

Petitioners’ opposed motion to file under seal portions of Github, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation’s answer (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted.

The Clerk will maintain the unredacted answer under seal at Docket Entry No. 14.1.

No other party having filed a motion to seal Exhibit 1, the Clerk will file publicly the motion to seal, the supporting declaration, and Exhibit 1 (Docket Entry No. 21).

Meta must submit both the redacted and unredacted versions.

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

For documents that were redacted because of privilege, Meta must submit both the redacted and the unredacted versions.

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

RICHARD KADREY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC 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 Court entered an Order extending the discovery deadline until December 13, 2024, ECF No. 211; WHEREAS, the parties originally agreed to schedule the deposition of third-party Stephen Roller for December 11, 2024, before the December 13, 2024 fact discovery deadline; WHEREAS, Mr. Roller has come down with an illness that has required his deposition to be rescheduled, which the parties have agreed will take place on December 18, 2024, subject to the Court’s permission.

WHEREAS, there has only been one extension of the fact discovery deadline requested and entered in this case, which was the Court’s Order setting the December 13, 2024 fact discovery deadline, ECF No. 211; and only one other deposition has been scheduled to be taken after the fact discovery close, ECF No. 277; 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 deposition of Mr. Roller may occur on Wednesday, December 18, 2024, after the close of fact discovery.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that counsel for Plaintiffs concurs in the filing of this document.

United States District Judge

The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint status report at ECF No. 323.

With respect to Sy Choudhury’s deposition and Meta’s 30(b)(6) deposition, the Court ORDERS the parties to file one or more joint discovery letter briefs no later than noon Pacific time on December 12, 2024.

The parties shall attach any exhibits that will help the Court to understand the disputes.

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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, the pending disputes over the ESI protocol and protective order, and all further discovery in this case, are referred for random assignment to a United States Magistrate Judge.

United States District Judge Rev.

10-18 Northern District of California United States District Court

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros for discovery.

The undersigned is reviewing the parties’ discovery letters (Re: Dkt. Nos. 248, 249), and will order a telephone conference, hearing, and/or further briefing, if needed.

For all future discovery disputes that the parties seek to resolve through this Court, the parties must comply with the procedures set forth in the Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Cisneros, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/lisa-j-cisneros/.

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