Entrepreneur Media is asking Judge Chhabria to deem its recently filed lawsuit Entrepreneur Media v. Meta a related case to Kadrey v. Meta under local rules. If it is, then it would be assigned to Judge Chhabria. Currently, the case is assigned to Judge Labson Freeman.
The Local Rule for the Northern District of California states: “3-12. Related Cases
(a) Definition of Related Cases. An action is related to another when:
(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or
event; and
(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and
expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.”
Is Entrepreneur Related to Kadrey?
Entrepreneur Media argues in its corrected related case motion:
“The two matters involve the same defendant and arise from the same events:
(1) Meta’s illegal download of copyrighted works contained in shadow libraries, and
(2) Meta’s use of those works to train large language models.
Because Judge Chhabria has familiarized himself with Meta’s alleged misconduct, including by resolving dispositive motions addressing the same alleged misconduct, conducting this case before a different judge would likely create an unduly burdensome duplication of labor.”
On the surface, these similarities do make the case sound related to Kadrey.
Noteworthy Differences
But not so fast. There may be important differences among the parties and alleged theories of harm or damages that point against related case status.
UPDATE: For example, in the Southern District of New York, Judge Polk Failla denied “related case” status to (i) Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Perplexity AI to the earlier filed Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI over which she presides (see Sept. 15, 2025 order, DI 14.) Even though the 2 cases involved the AI company and AI technology, Judge Polk Failla rejected Encyclopaedia Britannica’s statement of relatedness.
Here, Entrepreneur Media itself points out 2 differences in its motion: “Entrepreneur is situated differently than Kadrey plaintiffs as [i] a corporate published of book and periodicals, rather than individual authors, and [ii] because of the differences between the respective parties’ potential damages theories.” [Bracketed numbers inserted]
I would add these additional differences:
- Entrepreneur Media has alleged the new theory of copyright market dilution in its complaint (Section H). Kadrey did not properly advance a dilution theory and lost on that ground on summary judgment (even though Judge Chhabria said in dicta in most cases he would anticipate copyright dilution would make training illegal).
- Entrepreneur Media publishes business non-fiction articles and books, which might be more factual than the Kadrey book authors: As the court ruled in Kadrey: “This factor favors the plaintiffs. Their books—mostly novels, memoirs, and plays—are highly expressive works “of the type that the copyright laws value and seek to protect.”
What appears to be the same are: (1) Meta’s use of and torrenting (including alleged distribution from) shadow libraries; (2) Meta’s use of copies from shadow to train its AI model; and (3) Meta’s alleged removal of CMI. But, in Kadrey, Judge Chhabria has already ruled on summary judgment in favor of Meta on both (2) and (3). The case is still proceeding on (1).
Presumably, Entrepreneur Media’s Complaint does not concede it should already lose on (2) and (3) as Kadrey lost. That must mean that Entrepreneur Media thinks its case is substantially or materially different from Kadrey in a way that Entrepreneur Media can win on (2) and (3).
So, whether it’s Judge Chhabria or Judge Labson Freeman, a judge will have to preside over the new discovery, motions, and summary judgment proceedings in the Entrepreneur Media case, which was just filed. There will be new, unavoidable labor for either judge.
Moreover, unless Entrepreneur Media stipulates that it will rely simply on the depositions of Meta witnesses, including Mark Zuckerberg, already taken by Kadrey, the discovery in Entrepreneur Media will be starting from scratch.
Unduly burdensome or conflicting results?
This brings us to the second factor in the local rule for related cases: “It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.”
Because the Kadrey case is so far along (with most of the case already decided on summary judgment and only the distribution claim left) and the Entrepreneur Media case just beginning and not even in discovery, it’s hard to say “it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.”
Discovery in Entrepreneur Media still must be conducted, regardless of which Judge presides.
Summary judgment motions must be briefed and filed in Entrepreneur Media, regardless of which Judge presides.
In light of the different timing and apparent material differences that Entrepreneur Media believes distinguishes its case for potential success on (2) and (3) where Kadrey failed, I have not heard a good reason why any new judicial labor devoted to the newly filed case would be “unduly burdensome.” There’s nothing undue about a federal judge handling a new case filed by a new party with some material differences in the lawsuits.
And it seems too speculative whether there would be “conflicting results” with a different Judge.
As far as I can tell from Entrepreneur Media’s Complaint, they are not conceding (2) Meta’s use of copies from shadow to train its AI model was fair use; and (3) Meta’s alleged removal of CMI was not a violation of the DMCA. Plus, Entrepreneur Media is advancing the copyright dilution theory that Kadrey did not advance.
In other words, by all appearances, Entrepreneur Media is seeking different results than Kadrey on at least two thirds of the case.
Those different results could come before Judge Chhabria or another judge. Unless Entrepreneur Media concedes it will accept (2) Meta’s use of copies from shadow to train its AI model was fair use as Judge Chhabria ruled in Kadrey and (3) Meta’s alleged removal of CMI was not a violation of the DMCA as Judge Chhabria ruled in Kadrey, Entrepreneur Media’s arguments for related case status seems pretty weak. Entrepreneur Media wants a different result than Kadrey.
Is Entrepreneur Media seeking to be Kadrey II on copyright dilution theory?
In its complaint, citing Kadrey, Entrepreneur Media also seeks to advance the untested theory of copyright dilution: “Llama’s output competes directly with the Infringed Works. As the United States District Court for the Northern District of California observed, “the market for certain nonfiction works—for example, books about how to take care of your garden—could be greatly diminished by the ability of LLMs to produce books on that topic.”13 The market for professional periodicals faces similar displacement, as users can now generate competing content on demand instead of visiting Entrepreneur’s website, purchasing Entrepreneur Magazine, or licensing articles from Entrepreneur’s archives. See Kadrey, 788 F. Supp. 3d at 1035 (“If a company uses copyrighted magazine articles to train a model capable of generating similar articles, it’s easy to imagine the market for the copied articles diminishing substantially. Especially if the AI-generated articles are made available for free.”).”
Since Judge Chhabria’s discussion of the new theory of copyright dilution was only in dicta, it does not provide any basis under the related case local rule that cuts in favor of related case. In Kadrey, Judge Chhabria ruled against Kadrey in failing to advance copyright dilution. But, in its case, Entrepreneur Media wants a ruling on copyright dilution in favor of it.
Ultimately, it may well be better to have a third federal judge consider this new untested theory. Judge Alsup rejected it in Bartz v. Anthropic. Judge Chhabria supported it in dicta in Kadrey, while finding no evidence of it presented by Kadrey. Given the current uncertain state of the law, having a third federal judge weigh in on this controversial issue would help crystallize the arguments for and against copyright dilution for eventual consideration by the Ninth Circuit and other courts. In other words, since a conflict to copyright dilution already exists between Judge Alsup’s ruling in Bartz and Judge Chhabria’s dicta in Kadrey, a third federal judge would provide an important additional view to this novel question.
Responses of parties in Kadrey
Responses of the parties in Kadrey are due on Nov. 24.
Kadrey has already filed a position of non-opposition, which also stated: “Plaintiffs also submit, however, that the remainder of the Motion presents premature issues. At minimum, the question of relatedness should precede the question of how the related cases are litigated, to say nothing of the question of how damages for copyright infringement per work might be apportioned between authors and publishers—both putative class members in this case. See Third Amend. Consol. Compl., Dkt. 407, ¶ 115. Thus, to preserve their position, Plaintiffs note that they do not believe Entrepreneur Media is “situated differently,” Dkt. 651 at 2, for purposes of the issues before the Court. See Dkt. 407, ¶¶ 96-109, 115; see also Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1052-53 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (certifying class of both authors and publishers whose books were downloaded by Anthropic from two shadow libraries including Library Genesis). Plaintiffs asked counsel for Entrepreneur Media to include their position in the Motion, but counsel declined.”
Meta hasn’t file a position. The motion of Entrepreneur Media indicated: “Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc. (‘Meta’) has informed Entrepreneur that Meta does not oppose this administrative motion.” It’s unclear whether Meta will file a formal position.
DOWNLOAD ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA’S MOTION