Tech Cases Bot

@tech.bots.law

579 Followers 5 Following

Real-time updates on the latest cases in tech. Curated by The Verge. Hosted by @free.law. Also at @techcases@mastodon.social and @techcases_bot https://bots.law/little-cases/tech-cases-bot/

Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Further Case Management Conference held via Zoom on 7/20/2026. Documents to be produced for the following witnesses, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Shea, and Mr. Strain, by Thursday. Depositions to take place as scheduled. For the remaining 7 witnesses, documents must be produced within at least 4 calendar days prior to the scheduled depositions. Depositions will still take place if the documents are not produced timely. Depositions may be reopened based on additional documents that were produced later. Anyone who was not a document custodian in Kadrey who is being deposed, will have the same deadline of producing their documents no later than 4 calendar days prior to the scheduled depositions. Case schedule/discussion re how to proceed in Sullivan to occur at the next case management conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/29/2026. Statement does not need to abide by the formatting requirements. Parties may file a joint statement. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2026 at 01:30 PM by Videoconference Only. Total Time in Court: 1 hour. Court Reporter: Kendra Steppler. Plaintiff Attorney: Margaux Poueymirou, Annabel Weinbach (Kadrey), Moez Kaba, Harlye Carlton (Entrepreneur), Elizabeth Brannen, Kyle Roche, Lauren Martin (Chicken Soup, Cambronne, Cognella). Defendant Attorney: Karen Dunn, Jessica Phillips, Bobby Ghajar, Mark Weinstein, Phil Morton, Kyle Smith. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/20/2026) (Entered: 07/21/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Plaintiffs are admonished for failing to comply with Judge Cisneros's Civil Standing Order, which requires parties to file joint discovery letter briefs, or, "[i]n the rare instance that a joint letter is not possible," requires the party filing a unilateral letter to "include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible." Future discovery briefs that do not comply with the Standing Order may be stricken or denied as procedurally improper. That being said, the Court concludes that it will best serve the overall progression of this case to resolve the issue raised in Plaintiffs' 642 letter brief on the merits, and accordingly ORDERS Stability to file its response to Plaintiffs' portion of the 642 letter brief by July 22, 2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2026) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Midjourney's 621 discovery brief regarding Midjourney's clawback of documents and rules as follows: the Court agrees with Midjourney that the substance of Ms. Ali's responses to CFC's questions in Exhibit D and E reflect work product and may remain redacted. However, CFC's questions in Exhibits A, B, D, and E are not work product and not covered by the attorney-client privilege and must be produced in unredacted form. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Midjourney's redactions of its communications with Zyte were improper, as these communications were made "to further a commercial transaction" between Midjourney and Zyte and were not "made in the course of formulating a common legal strategy." Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 579-89 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (emphasis removed, internal quotations omitted). Midjourney shall produce Exhibit G in unredacted form. Plaintiffs may reopen Ms. Ali's deposition for half an hour on the record to question her about the communications with Zyte. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2026) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Runway's 645 letter brief regarding Plaintiffs' responses to Interrogatory No. 13. Broadly speaking, the Court agrees with Runway that Plaintiffs must do more to identify their customers and update their interrogatories accordingly. A party has "an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its discovery responses," and is "generally charged with knowledge of what its agents know, or what is in records available to it." Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 680 (C.D. Cal. 2009); F.D.I.C. v. Halpern, 271 F.R.D. 191, 193 (D. Nev. 2010). "A party cannot limit its interrogatory answers to matters within its own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to it or under its control." Halpern, 271 F.R.D. at 193. Consistent with these principles, Plaintiffs must respond to Interrogatory No. 13 fully, based on information within their own knowledge and information that is reasonably accessible, including information possessed by their agents or otherwise under Plaintiffs' control. However, the Court is cognizant of the burden on Plaintiffs. Unlike Plaintiffs' requests to Runway, which required Runway to identify and provide information about a discrete list of 84 enterprise partners, Runway wants Plaintiffs to identify all customers for their Asserted Works since 2020. As Plaintiffs explain, providing this information would be unduly burdensome and thus run afoul of Rule 26(b). ECF No. 645 at 6. The parties are accordingly ordered to meet and confer to identify a narrow subset or subsets of customers (for example, based on type of customer, timeframe, or revenue) that each Plaintiff must identify, and Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses accordingly. The parties shall meet and confer by July 17, 2026, and Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses within fourteen days of the conclusion of their conferral efforts. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2026) (Entered: 07/14/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: CLERK'S NOTICE PROVIDING ZOOM ACCESS AND REQUIRING ADVANCED REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL RE 7/20/2026 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at vccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than July 17, 2026 at 2:00 PM PST.Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.),. (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 07/15/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER. With the parties' withdrawal of the joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1232, the evidentiary hearing set for July 16, 2026, is vacated. A status conference will be held in lieu of the evidence hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of Google's compliance with the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1017, and the implementation of the remedies that were ordered. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/15/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026) (Entered: 07/15/2026)
The entry's text: Clerk's Notice re Deadline for Ordering Daily Transcript and/or Realtime Reporting:The deadline to request daily transcripts or Realtime reporting for counsel during the evidentiary hearing is 7/2/2026 . More details regarding daily transcripts or Realtime are available on the Transcripts/Court Reporters webpage (see section III) at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/about/clerks-office/transcripts-court-reporters/Contact the Court Reporter Supervisor with questions at transcripts@cand.uscourts.gov by the deadline above. (mkl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 06/29/2026)
The entry's text: CLERK'S NOTICE PROVIDING ZOOM ACCESS AND REQUIRING ADVANCED REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL RE 7/20/2026 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at vccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than July 17, 2026 at 2:00 PM PST.Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2026 at 02:30 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.),. (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 07/15/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER. With the parties' withdrawal of the joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1232, the evidentiary hearing set for July 16, 2026, is vacated. A status conference will be held in lieu of the evidence hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of Google's compliance with the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1017, and the implementation of the remedies that were ordered. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/15/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026) (Entered: 07/15/2026)
The entry's text: Clerk's Notice re Deadline for Ordering Daily Transcript and/or Realtime Reporting:The deadline to request daily transcripts or Realtime reporting for counsel during the evidentiary hearing is 7/2/2026 . More details regarding daily transcripts or Realtime are available on the Transcripts/Court Reporters webpage (see section III) at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/about/clerks-office/transcripts-court-reporters/Contact the Court Reporter Supervisor with questions at transcripts@cand.uscourts.gov by the deadline above. (mkl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) (Entered: 06/29/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER. With the parties' withdrawal of the joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1232, the evidentiary hearing set for July 16, 2026, is vacated. A status conference will be held in lieu of the evidence hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of Google's compliance with the permanent injunction, MDL Dkt. No. 1017, and the implementation of the remedies that were ordered. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/15/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026) (Entered: 07/15/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER. The 752 motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed is granted as to the narrow set of redactions specified by the 763 declaration. Within 7 days, Meta must file under separate docket numbers any public redacted copies that are not already attached as exhibits to the 763 declaration (if any). Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/15/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2026)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) Modified on 7/15/2026 (vclc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: Reset Hearing as to 854 MOTION for Contempt Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Contempt. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2026 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (amg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: EXHIBITS Unsealed Documents from Meta's Filings Related to Summary Judgment Motions, Rule 702 Motions, and Motions in Limine filed byInstagram, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Meta's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Meta's MSJ - Ex. 71, # 3 Meta's Opposition to AGs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 4 Meta's Reply iso SJ & Opp to Cross-Motion PSJ, # 5 Meta's MTE Saba - Ex. 7, # 6 Meta's MIL No. 1 to Preclude Evidence or Argument Related to Meta's Alleged Omission or Failure to Warn of Information, # 7 Meta's MIL No. 1 - Ex. A, # 8 Meta's MIL No. 1 - Ex. B, # 9 Meta's MIL No. 1 - Ex. C, # 10 Meta's MIL No. 2 to Preclude Evidence Second-Guessing Meta's Policies and Procedures as Irrelevant and Barred Under Section 230, # 11 Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. B, # 12 Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. C, # 13 Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. D, # 14 Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. E, # 15 Meta's MIL No. 3 to Exclude Testimony from Certain Former Employees Under Section 230 and as Impermissible Lay Opinion, # 16 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. B, # 17 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. H, # 18 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. I, # 19 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. L, # 20 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. N, # 21 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. P, # 22 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. R, # 23 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. S, # 24 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. U, # 25 Meta's MIL No. 4 - Ex. L, # 26 Meta's MIL No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument That Meta's Age Verification Features and Cosmetic Surgery or Other Third-Party Filters Are Unfair Practices, # 27 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. A, # 28 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. B, # 29 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. C, # 30 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. D, # 31 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. E, # 32 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 1 to Exclude Certain Testimony of State Witnesses, # 33 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 1 - Ex. A, # 34 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 1 - Ex. B, # 35 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 Seeking To Exclude From The Advisory Jury Phase Of Trial Evidence Of Metas Platform And Policy Changes Made After The Relevant Time, # 36 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. A, # 37 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. B, # 38 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. C, # 39 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. D, # 40 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. E, # 41 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. F, # 42 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. G, # 43 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. I, # 44 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. J, # 45 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. K, # 46 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. L, # 47 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. M, # 48 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. N, # 49 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. P, # 50 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. Q, # 51 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. R, # 52 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. S, # 53 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. T, # 54 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. U, # 55 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. V, # 56 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. W, # 57 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. X, # 58 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. Y, # 59 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. Z, # 60 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 3 to Exclude Legal Conclusion Testimony, # 61 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 3 - Ex. 1, # 62 Meta's Opp. to AGs' MIL No. 3 - Ex. 2)(Perez-Marques, Antonio) (Filed on 7/10/2026) (Entered: 07/10/2026)
The entry's text: EXHIBITS Partially Unsealed Documents from Filings Related to Summary Judgment Motions, Rule 702 Motions, Supplement to State AGs Motion to Strike, Motions in Limine, State AGs Response to Order for Documentation Regarding Certain Meta Misrepresentations, and State AGs Penalty and Disgorgement Charts filed byInstagram, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Meta's MSJ - Ex. 84 (Redacted), # 2 AGs' Opp. to Meta's MSJ - Ex. 24 (Redacted), # 3 AGs Opp. to Metas MSJ - Ex. 30 (Redacted), # 4 AGs' Opp. to Meta's MSJ - Ex. 164 (Redacted), # 5 AGs' Opp. to Meta's MSJ - Ex. 165 (Redacted), # 6 Meta's Opp. to AGs' Partial MSJ - Ex. 6 (Redacted), # 7 AGs' MTE McCrary - Ex. 1 (Redacted), # 8 Meta's MTE Saba - Ex.1 (Redacted), # 9 AGs' Opp to Meta's MTE Saba - Ex. 1 (Redacted), # 10 AGs' MTS Jensen - Ex. F (Redacted), # 11 AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. 1 (Redacted), # 12 Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. A (Redacted), # 13 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. C (Redacted), # 14 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. D (Redacted), # 15 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. M (Redacted), # 16 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. O (Redacted), # 17 Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. V (Redacted), # 18 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. F (Redacted), # 19 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. G (Redacted), # 20 Meta's MIL No. 5 - Ex. H (Redacted), # 21 AGs' Opp to Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. G (Redacted), # 22 AGs' Opp to Meta's MIL No. 2 - Ex. I (Redacted), # 23 AGs' Opp to Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. D (Redacted), # 24 AGs' Opp to Meta's MIL No. 3 - Ex. E (Redacted), # 25 Meta's Opp to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. H (Redacted), # 26 Meta's Opp to AGs' MIL No. 2 - Ex. O (Redacted), # 27 Response to Courts Order to Provide Documentation Regarding Certain Meta Misrepresentations (Redacted), # 28 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. A (Redacted), # 29 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. B (Redacted), # 30 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. C (Redacted), # 31 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. D (Redacted), # 32 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. E (Redacted), # 33 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. F (Redacted), # 34 AGs' Misreps Filing - Ex. G (Redacted), # 35 AGs' Penalty & Disgorgement Charts - Ex. C-6 (Redacted))(Perez-Marques, Antonio) (Filed on 7/10/2026) (Entered: 07/10/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Per the request at ECF No. 644, the Court clarifies that Section 11 of the ESI Protocol permits Plaintiffs to make up to 200 hyperlink requests per each of the four Defendants. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not in any way authorize Plaintiffs to make additional requests for hyperlinked documents, but does require Defendants to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' requests for "a further round of hyperlinked documents" Plaintiffs requested "before the end of fact discovery," assuming Plaintiffs' requests did not exceed 200 hyperlinks per Defendant. ECF No. 644 at 2. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2026) (Entered: 07/09/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Runway's 641 discovery brief. As it has agreed to do, Runway shall supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 5, and 6 no later than July 15, 2026. Runway's response to Interrogatory No. 6 shall identify the CLIP model used by each at-issue model, and, for each CLIP model, specify the name, version number, origin of the model, and a description of any training, fine-tuning, or other customizations or adjustments Runway made. Plaintiffs and Runway may file joint status report by July 21, 2026, if Plaintiffs contend Runway's supplemental responses are still deficient. The Court disagrees with Runway that revenue information for the 84 enterprise customers is irrelevant, as this may bear on the "extent of market harm" to Plaintiffs. Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994)). Nor is the Court persuaded that providing this information for 84 enterprise customers would be unduly burdensome. Runway shall provide this information, as well as the dates during which each enterprise customer had a contract with Runway, within fourteen days of this Order. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2026) (Entered: 07/09/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Runway's 641 discovery brief. As it has agreed to do, Runway shall supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 5, and 6 no later than July 15, 2026. Runway's response to Interrogatory No. 6 shall identify the CLIP model used by each at-issue model, and, for each CLIP model, specify the name, version number, origin of the model, and a description of any training, fine-tuning, or other customizations or adjustments Runway made. Plaintiffs and Runway may file joint status report by July 21, 2026, if Plaintiffs contend Runway's supplemental responses are still deficient. The Court disagrees with Runway that revenue information for the 84 enterprise customers is irrelevant, as this may bear on the "extent of market harm" to Plaintiffs. Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994)). Nor is the Court persuaded that providing this information for 84 enterprise customers would be unduly burdensome. Runway shall provide this information, as well as the dates during which each enterprise customer had a contract with Runway, within fourteen days of this Order. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2026) (Entered: 07/09/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Per the request at ECF No. 644, the Court clarifies that Section 11 of the ESI Protocol permits Plaintiffs to make up to 200 hyperlink requests per each of the four Defendants. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not in any way authorize Plaintiffs to make additional requests for hyperlinked documents, but does require Defendants to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' requests for "a further round of hyperlinked documents" Plaintiffs requested "before the end of fact discovery," assuming Plaintiffs' requests did not exceed 200 hyperlinks per Defendant. ECF No. 644 at 2. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2026) (Entered: 07/09/2026)
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.
The entry's text: ORDER by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Having considered Plaintiffs and Runway's 630 joint discovery letter and the accompanying record, as well as the relevant legal authorities, Plaintiffs' request to depose Yining Shi and Naveen Venkat pursuant to the deposition notices served on July 2, 2026 is DENIED as Plaintiffs have not shown they acted with the requisite reasonable diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2026) (Entered: 07/07/2026)
The entry's text: NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Mark Alan Lemley, no longer appearing on behalf of Stability AI Ltd., Stability AI, Inc. in this case (Lemley, Mark) (Filed on 6/25/2026) (Entered: 06/25/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Plaintiffs' 636 request that Midjourney produce curated "art" and "artist" datasets is DENIED. For the reasons explained in its 314 prior Order denying production of non-LAION datasets, discovery is limited to information relevant to the parties' claims and defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Discovery regarding Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims and Midjourney's anticipated fair use defense is thus limited to the datasets at issue in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have not explained how discovery regarding datasets not at issue here would be relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2026) (Entered: 07/08/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Stability's 599 status report. The parties shall meet and confer further by June 19, 2026. If they are unable to reach a resolution, they shall file a joint letter brief following the procedures in Judge Cisneros's Civil Standing Order Section F-5. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2026) (Entered: 06/17/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs and Stability's 599 status report. The parties shall meet and confer further by June 19, 2026. If they are unable to reach a resolution, they shall file a joint letter brief following the procedures in Judge Cisneros's Civil Standing Order Section F-5. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2026) (Entered: 06/17/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Plaintiffs' 636 request that Midjourney produce curated "art" and "artist" datasets is DENIED. For the reasons explained in its 314 prior Order denying production of non-LAION datasets, discovery is limited to information relevant to the parties' claims and defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Discovery regarding Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims and Midjourney's anticipated fair use defense is thus limited to the datasets at issue in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have not explained how discovery regarding datasets not at issue here would be relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2026) (Entered: 07/08/2026)
The entry's text: NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Mark Alan Lemley, no longer appearing on behalf of Stability AI Ltd., Stability AI, Inc. in this case (Lemley, Mark) (Filed on 6/25/2026) (Entered: 06/25/2026)
The entry's text: ORDER by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros: Having considered Plaintiffs and Runway's 630 joint discovery letter and the accompanying record, as well as the relevant legal authorities, Plaintiffs' request to depose Yining Shi and Naveen Venkat pursuant to the deposition notices served on July 2, 2026 is DENIED as Plaintiffs have not shown they acted with the requisite reasonable diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ljclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2026) (Entered: 07/07/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Defendants' Verified Motion to Seal Defendants' Motion to Enforce the Court's Order on Interrogatory No. 8 (Sealed pursuant to motion to seal) filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Sealed Motion to Enforce the Court's Order on Interrogatory No. 8, # 2 Corrected Appendix of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit(s) 1-10, # 4 Proposed Order)(Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (Foulkes Grafton, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Response to Motion re: 317 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by X Corp (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: RESPONSE filed by X Corp re: 330 (Document Restricted) Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Text Messages (Sealed pursuant to motion to seal) (Hilton, Christopher) (Entered: 06/30/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Appendix in Support re: 268 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by X Corp (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Appendix in Support re: 319 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Document filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s)) (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Appendix in Support re: 317 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Attachments: # 1 Additional Page(s)) (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Reply to Motion re: 314 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by X Corp. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Hilton, Christopher) (Entered: 06/25/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Seal Reply and Appendix in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by X Corp (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Production, # 3 Appendix to Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Production)(Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (Hilton, Christopher) (Entered: 06/16/2026)
The entry's text: NOTICE of WITHDRAWAL OF SUBPOENA TO ROBIN WHEELER filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Foulkes Grafton, Alex) (Entered: 06/16/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Brief/Memorandum in Support re: 268 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by X Corp (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Opposition to X's SCA Supplement filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Declaration of Eric Hananoki re: 319 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Document filed by Angelo Carusone, Eric Hananoki, Media Matters for America (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
The entry's text: (Document Restricted) Sealed Appendix in Support re: 324 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Response/Objection filed by X Corp (Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (jnp) (Entered: 06/05/2026)