David Boies and his team of lawyers from his firm wasted no time in taking the lead for the plaintiffs in the book authors case, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms. Boies joined the plaintiffs’ legal team after Judge Chhabria roundly chastised Joseph Saveri, then the lead plaintiffs’ attorney, for perceived lapses of the team of plaintiffs’ lawyers in conducting discovery, such as the failure to conduct any depositions with just 18 days before the close of fact discovery.
Saveri then enlisted David Boies and experienced lawyers from his firm. They get to depose Mark Zuckerberg for 7 hours.
Boies is now asking Judge Chhabria to amend the scheduling order to allow more time for discovery (around 2 months), while keeping the scheduled hearing for motions for summary judgment on March 27, 2025, something the Judge Chabbria was eager to keep.
However, Boies asserts that Meta is raising a number of issues beyond fair use, for which Boies would like more time to conduct additional discovery, including: (1) financial statements related to revenue from Llama models, (2) Meta’s state of mind, and (3) technical discovery into Meta’s source code. So, alternatively, Boies is asking even more time for discovery (approximately 3.5 months).
You can attend the hearing on the motion before Judge Chabbria via Zoom on Friday, Oct. 4, at 1:00 PM:
CLERK’S NOTICE PROVIDING ZOOM ACCESS AND REQUIRING ADVANCE REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL RE 10/4/2024 HEARING. 193 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Amend Case Management Schedule Hearing set for 10/4/2024 at 01:00 PM by Videoconference Only before Judge Vince Chhabria.
This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at vccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than Wednesday, October 2, 2024, by no later than 12:00PM.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.
The plaintiffs’ motion starts out with a juicy quote from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg remarking about how creators and publishers “tend to overestimate the value of their specific content in the grand scheme of this.”
No doubt the attorneys from Boies’ law firm will be asking Zuckerberg questions about this quote during his deposition.
Just last week, a reporter covering Meta’s annual technology conference quoted Meta’s CEO commenting on why Meta chose to scrape copyrighted works without negotiating licenses for their use in the first instance, stating, “I think individual creators or publishers tend to overestimate the value of their specific content in the grand scheme of this,” and he “guess[ed] . . . there are going to be certain partnerships that get made when content is really important and valuable.” Pritt Decl. Ex. A (9/25/24 Zuckerberg Interview) at 40.
As the Court explained at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Discovery Cutoff, this case is an “important” and “complex matter” that will decide whether purveyors of artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies, like Meta, may, without permission, use copyrighted works to develop and commercialize their products. Pritt Decl. Ex. B (9/20/24 Hr’g Tr.) at 15:12-16, 16:2- 3, 16; see also Ex. A at 38 (Meta’s CEO stating last week he believes “all these things are basically going to need to get relitigated and rediscussed in the AI era. These are important questions.”). Because large language models (“LLMs”) rely on enormous amounts of data, the scale of potential infringement is unprecedented. This case is thus very “important for the proposed class” of all U.S. copyright holders, who stand on the precipice of losing control over, and the economic value of, their intellectual property. Ex. B at 15:12-16. And because AI is rapidly proliferating across every aspect of daily life, this proceeding presents “an important societal issue.” Id. Accordingly, the Court recognized the need for building a “proper record” that will permit it to issue a pivotal decision concerning this rapidly proliferating technology and the legality of its corporate owners’ pirating of authors’ intellectual property. Id. at 16:19-20. To that end, the Court requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel augment its team, saying it would consider extending the discovery period “with a newly constituted legal team” and an articulation of “what’s missing that is important to the fair use issue at summary judgment.”
