In the visual artists’ lawsuit, Andersen v. Stability AI, Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros agreed with the plaintiffs that a list of all enterprise clients of Stability AI is relevant information to fair use, and market harm under Factor 4.
“ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request at ECF No. 454 and ORDERS Defendant Stability AI to respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 14. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that this interrogatory seeks information relevant to fair use, which turns on (among other things), the nature and extent of commerciality of the allegedly infringing use, the public benefit resulting from the use, and the impact of widespread copying on the potential market for the copyrighted work. McGucken v. Pub Ocean Ltd., 42 F.4th 1149, 1163 (9th Cir. 2022); see Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1523 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (Jan. 6, 1993); 17 U.S.C. § 107. Relevance for discovery purposes is broad, and given that fair use in the context of generative AI is an unsettled area of law, the Court (within reason) is disinclined to prematurely limit Plaintiffs’ ability to advance theories to counter fair use. See Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).
Stability’s concerns regarding “disclosure of highly sensitive commercial information” may be adequately addressed by confidentiality designations following this case’s Protective Order. ECF No. 454 at 4. Moreover, “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy,” the parties’ relative access to this information, and Stability’s failure to show that responding to the interrogatory at issue would be unduly burdensome all weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Stability is accordingly ordered to respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 14 by April 15, 2026.”
Here’s the Interrogatory No. 14:
