In Concord Music v. Anthropic, Magistrate Judge van Keulen ruled on the parties’ dispute over several discovery items. The most controversial relates to the dispute over the amount of prompts and outputs that Anthropic must provide to respond to “Publishers’ requests for prompts and outputs from Claude products that relate to song lyrics, for which this Court previously ordered that a ‘statistically significant sample would be proportional to the needs of the case.’”
Concord Music wanted 25 million; Anthropic wanted 1 million. Judge van Keulen ordered 5 million.
But the more controversial aspect of the dispute was Anthropic’s data scientist Olivia Chen’s declaration. It had a citation to a work that does not exist (the authors and title), which the Latham & Watkins lawyer for Anthropic explained was the result of their using Claude to try to correctly format the citations in the declaration.
Judge van Keulen sounded a bit skeptical of the explanation, at least as to the part that a “manual citation check was performed” by Latham but “did not catch the error.” Ultimately, the Judge struck that paragraph from Chen’s declaration and said it undermined the overall credibility of the declaration, a factor that the Judge relied on in making her ruling.
Here’s the paragraph 9 that was stricken along with footnote 3 with the AI hallucinated citation (though the link goes to the actual source).
DOWNLOAD MAGISTRATE JUDGE VAN KEULEN’S ORDER
Related Stories