Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.
- Robert Illman
- 3:23-cv-03223
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Magistrate Judge Illman denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel broad discovery because they did not identify missing documents or show relevance and proportionality.
The plaintiffs’ request for the additional discovery was denied, so the defendants were not required by this order to produce the requested materials.
What happened
In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to produce all documents and communications that OpenAI had produced in a separate case. They made this request under Request for Production No. 27.
The plaintiffs said the materials were relevant, not burdensome to produce, and proportional to the needs of the case. The defendants responded that the request sought an improper copy of discovery from another case, which involved different claims and defendants, and said they had already agreed to produce largely overlapping materials where appropriate.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman ruled that the plaintiffs had not identified which documents were missing, described the categories of materials sought, or shown that the materials were relevant and proportional to this case.
The detailed version
- Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-03223
- Robert Illman
- May 14, 2024
Background
The court considered a jointly filed letter brief concerning a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to produce all documents and communications that OpenAI had produced to plaintiffs or third parties in a separate case. The request was made under Request for Production No. 27.
The court decided the dispute without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Parties’ positions
The plaintiffs stated that the requested materials were directly relevant, that producing them would impose no burden, and that the discovery was proportional to the needs of the case. The opinion states that the plaintiffs did not detail which documents or communications had been produced in the separate case but not in this case, or explain why those materials were relevant to the claims and defenses here.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were improperly seeking copied discovery from another case involving different claims and defendants. The defendants also stated that, where the claims and theories overlapped, OpenAI had already agreed to produce largely the same set of documents in response to other requests. They argued that OpenAI was not required to produce every document from the separate case because some materials would be irrelevant here.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs had not identified or described any documents that were allegedly missing from this case but had been produced in the separate case. The court held that this failure meant the plaintiffs had not met their burden to show relevance and proportionality under Rule 26.
The court also explained that a general statement that the missing discovery was unquestionably relevant was insufficient. In addition, Rule 37 requires a party seeking to compel discovery to identify the specific discovery requests at issue. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not identified or described any documents, communications, or categories of materials that they sought to compel, much less established their relevance and proportionality to the claims and defenses.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel material under Request for Production No. 27. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.