In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation

Background

The Daily News Plaintiffs asked OpenAI to answer Interrogatory No. 10. The interrogatory sought descriptions of OpenAI’s processes for removing, extracting, masking, hiding, or altering copyright-management information connected with publishers’ content. It covered multiple stages, including obtaining, generating, curating, cleaning, formatting, and storing training datasets; retrieval-augmented generation; and pre-training, post-training, and fine-tuning.

OpenAI objected under Local Civil Rule 33.3. That rule generally limits interrogatories to information such as witness identities, damages calculations, and descriptions of relevant documents, unless an interrogatory is a more practical way to obtain the information than a document request or deposition. OpenAI argued that Interrogatory No. 10 sought broad narrative information better obtained through depositions and duplicated document requests concerning the removal of copyright-management information. OpenAI also said it had agreed to provide witnesses and run related document-search terms.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on October 15, 2025. During the parties’ later discussions, OpenAI agreed to provide a response by November 5, 2025—the date the plaintiffs had requested in their motion—while reserving the right to supplement the response as depositions and document discovery continued.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang ordered OpenAI to respond to Interrogatory No. 10 by November 5, 2025. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 652. The opinion does not expressly state that the motion to compel was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. It also does not decide the underlying copyright claims.