Amidst a tsunami of media coverage of AI doomsday concerns, OpenAI just filed an explosive motion to strike that will return some attention back to the MDL copyright litigation against it. OpenAI seeks to strike the non-peer-reviewed AI research paper provocatively titled “Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for books,” as well as expert testimony based on it.
OpenAI says it uncovered a disclosure by the lead researcher who wrote the paper, Stony Brook University professor Dr. Tuhin Chakrabarty on his webpage resume: “Dr. Chakrabarty’s resume on his website, showing a $100,000 ‘gift’ from ‘Susman Godfrey L.L.P.’ sponsoring the research subject of the Chakrabarty Paper.”
OpenAI further alleges: “Rather than disclose Dr. Chakrabarty’s opinions through the ordinary expert process, Class Plaintiffs backchanneled his litigation-funded work into the case through a different expert, Mr. Michael Lasinski. On Sunday, August 2, 2026, the day before Mr. Lasinski’s deposition and after all expert-report deadlines had passed, Susman served a ‘supplemental’ report by Mr. Lasinski devoted entirely to the Chakrabarty Paper. Chiu Decl. Ex. Q. At his deposition, Mr. Lasinski testified that he did not know Susman had funded the research, stating that ‘funding something like this would be inconsistent with what I’ve known the Susman Godfrey firm to do.’ Chiu Decl. Ex. B (August 3, 2026 Deposition of Michael Lasinski (“Lasinski Tr.”)) 119:2-4. Susman counsel defending the deposition sat silent and did nothing to correct this testimony.”
OpenAI Motion to strike
“Thus, Susman’s role in funding Dr. Chakrabarty’s supposedly independent research
remained undisclosed both when Susman identified Dr. Chakrabarty as an expert and when it introduced his work through Mr. Lasinski. And Class Plaintiffs have now carried that same
omission into summary judgment: they submitted the Chakrabarty Paper as an exhibit; devoted thirteen paragraphs of their statement of facts to summarizing it, Dkt. No. 1987 ¶¶ 858-871; and cite it in their brief and statement of facts simply as an “academic stud[y],” without disclosing their counsel’s funding of the research. Id. ¶ 858; Dkt. No. 1982 at 16.”
Pretty explosive allegations by OpenAI. The Chakrabarty’s paper itself does not appear to disclose the $100,000 funding, either, as far as I can tell. (OpenAI’s motion, at pp. 6-7, details how it contacted counsel for the plaintiffs about this issue. “Two days later, on August 27, 2026, Dr. Chakrabarty changed the resume on his public-facing website and removed the reference to Susman’s $100,000 gift. Chiu Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. M. The revised resume now states, in fine print and barely legible font, that “[a] previous version of [Dr. Chakrabarty’s] resume stated that [he] received an unrestricted gift for sponsored research from Susman Godfrey LLP in the amount of $100,000. This was incorrect as the research was done for In re Mosaic LLM litigation for which [his] institution was compensated in a lesser amount:”
You can see a different amount ($70,297.00) disclosed on his current university Research Connect page:
OpenAI is asking Judge Stein for oral argument.
Excerpt from OpenAI’s motion to strike:
DOWNLOAD OPENAI’S MOTION TO STRIKE:
