The Sullivan v. Meta case has flown under the radar. Until now. The Sullivan textbook authors have filed a motion to appoint interim class counsel. That motion is now being opposed by Kadrey book authors and Elsevier publishers.
In support of their motion, Sullivan criticizes the class representation in Bartz v. Anthropic of which class they were a part:
In Bartz, where textbook authors’ unique interests were also not developed on the
Sullivan
record, class counsel ultimately reached a settlement that treated textbook authors differently, and less favorably, than other class members, burdening them to prove—on a post-settlement basis— that they are entitled to any share of the recovery proceeds at all, while all other authors enjoyed a presumption they would split the proceeds evenly with their publishers. The Sullivan Plaintiffs are not willing to be subject to conflicted representation in the development of a record to protect their interests, and ultimately if settlement is reached, in the negotiation of settlement terms.
EXCERPT:
Apparently, Sullivan was considering withdrawing their motion due to comments made by Judge Chhabria at a status hearing. Judge Chhabria just denied a motion for an extension to reply to their motion so the briefing marches forward: “ORDER. 88 Joint Stipulation Extending Briefing Schedule and Continuing Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel is denied. The parties filed the stipulation on the deadline for the filing of oppositions to the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel. Paragraph 9 of this Court’s Standing Order requires a party to file a request to extend a deadline no later than 72 hours before the deadline. In their stipulation, the parties stated that extending the deadlines would prevent unnecessary briefing should the plaintiffs withdraw their motion, but two other groups of plaintiffs—the Kadrey and Elsevier plaintiffs—have already briefed their oppositions. The Kadrey plaintiffs are directed to submit their opposition by the end of the day today. As a courtesy to the Sullivan plaintiffs, they will have 7 days from the date of this order to file their reply. The date of the hearing remains unchanged.”
Sullivan Motion:
Elsevier Opposition:
Kadrey Opposition:
