Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
- Van Keulen
- 5:24-cv-03811
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Concord Music Group v. Anthropic, Judge Van Keulen partly granted and partly denied requests to keep discovery materials sealed.
Anthropic PBC, Concord Music Group, Inc., and the other Publishers involved in the discovery disputes; the order also addressed the confidentiality of information concerning Claude users, Anthropic’s usage metrics, and training datasets.
What happened
In Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, the Publishers asked the court to decide whether materials connected to discovery disputes should remain sealed. Anthropic supported sealing some materials, and the Publishers opposed it.
The court applied a lower secrecy standard because the materials concerned discovery rather than the case’s underlying claims. It partly allowed sealing of Claude usage figures and allowed sealing of two datasets used to train Claude, but denied sealing requests for descriptions and anonymous excerpts from user prompts. It also ordered specific materials unsealed or replaced with narrower redactions.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted in part and denied in part Anthropic’s requests to seal the identified discovery materials. The clerk was ordered to unseal one declaration, Anthropic was ordered to file replacement redacted copies of two documents by May 29, 2025, and another document was to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC · No. 5:24-cv-03811
- Van Keulen
- May 23, 2025
Background
The court considered the Publishers’ administrative motions under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) concerning materials connected to discovery disputes. One dispute concerned the sampling protocol for Anthropic’s searches and production of Claude prompts and outputs. Another concerned the Publishers’ challenges to Anthropic’s confidentiality designations. Anthropic filed declarations supporting sealing, and the Publishers opposed the requests.
This order did not resolve Docket No. 336 or related filings concerning sealing material in the Publishers’ First Amended Complaint; those matters were before Judge Eumi K. Lee.
Legal standard
The court explained that court records generally carry a presumption of public access. Because the materials here were attached to and cited in joint discovery submissions rather than motions or pleadings addressing the merits, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard instead of the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the court focused on the private interests of the litigants.
Rulings
Claude usage figures and metrics
Anthropic sought to seal metrics showing how many prompts were submitted to Claude during various periods. The court found that these figures could provide competitors with insight into Anthropic’s market share and business strategies. The court also found, however, that Anthropic had publicly disclosed some isolated usage metrics, reducing the risk of harm from disclosure of limited information.
The court therefore granted in part Anthropic’s request concerning Claude usage figures. For the discovery-dispute statement at Docket No. 340-2, sealing was denied as to the word “seven” on ECF pages 2, 4–7, and 10; the number “14” on ECF pages 3, 5, and 6; the number “45” on ECF page 5; the number “8” on ECF page 7; all highlighting on ECF page 8; and the number “8” on ECF page 11. The court stated that the request was otherwise granted.
For Olivia Chen’s declaration, Docket No. 340-3, sealing of the highlighted portion of paragraph 16 was denied. For Kristofer Buchan’s declaration, Docket No. 351-2, sealing of the highlighted portion of paragraph 33 was granted.
Specific user prompts and outputs
Anthropic sought to seal descriptions and direct quotations from specific Claude user prompts. The court recognized that users have a privacy interest in their interactions with Claude, but concluded that the descriptions and anonymous excerpts at issue did not warrant sealing. The court denied Anthropic’s request to seal those descriptions and prompt excerpts.
For the discovery-dispute statement at Docket No. 344-2, sealing was denied as to the prompt/output excerpts on ECF pages 3–4, the descriptions on ECF page 8, and the number “14 million” on ECF pages 5–6.
Training datasets
Anthropic sought to seal information about two datasets used to train Claude. The court did not agree that Anthropic had publicly disclosed using either dataset to train Claude. Applying the good-cause standard, the court found that the training datasets were competitively sensitive and granted Anthropic’s request to seal the related materials. For Docket No. 344-2, sealing was granted as to the highlighting related to the training datasets used by Anthropic.
Final directives
The court granted in part and denied in part Anthropic’s requests to seal the specified materials. The clerk was ordered to unseal Docket No. 340-3. Anthropic was ordered to file replacement redacted copies of Docket Nos. 340-2 and 344-2 by May 29, 2025. Docket No. 351-2 was to remain under seal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.