OpenAI sought from the New York Times information related to “(1) the Times’s use of nonparties’ generative artificial intelligence (“Gen AI”) tools; (2) the Times’s creation and use of its own Gen AI products; and (3) the Times’s position regarding Gen AI (e.g., positions expressed outside of litigation, knowledge about the training of third-party Gen AI tools using the Time’s works).” But Judge Wang ruled that OpenAI failed to show any of this information was relevant to the fair use analysis.
Magistrate Judge Wang also relied on that ruling to deny a request in the Authors Guild case: “ORDER denying 232 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The discovery dispute relates to Defendants’ fair use defense and is denied for the reasons identified in ECF 344 in the related Newspaper Cases (23-cv-11195). Additionally, the request is denied as premature: this dispute relates to interrogatories requesting that Plaintiffs identify certain documents that may relate to Defendants’ fair use defense. The parties should be guided by the scope of agreed-upon document production that the Plaintiffs in these cases and the Newspaper Cases have been and will be producing. If Defendants still seek identification of documents produced, they may renew this motion after reviewing the produced documents and meeting and conferring with their adversaries, but would need to explain why and how they still need identification of documents after they have reviewed the documents themselves. “
Now, both Microsoft and OpenAI are challenging Magistrate Judge Wang’s rulings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), Judge Stein will rule on whether the orders are “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.”
New York Times / newspaper suits
Authors Guild / book author suits