Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al

Filing 119

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI Ltd., DeviantArt, Inc., and Midjourney, Inc.(Saveri, Joseph) (Filed on 10/31/2023) Modified on 11/1/2023 (bar, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Mark A. Lemley (State Bar No. 155830)
LEX LUMINA PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Nicole M. Jantzi (pro hac vice)
Paul M. Schoenhard (pro hac vice)
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER &
JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Counsel for Defendants Stability AI, Inc.
and Stability AI Ltd.

13

[Additional counsel on signature page]

Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
Louis A. Kessler (State Bar No. 243703)
Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
Travis Manfredi (State Bar No. 281779)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

SARAH ANDERSEN, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
Individual and Representative Plaintiffs,
v.
STABILITY AI, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT
Date:
Time:
Place:
Before:

November 7, 2023
2:00 p.m.
Videoconference
Hon. William H. Orrick

24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

Pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, this

2

Court’s May 25, 2023 Case Management Conference Order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,

3

and Civil L.R. 16-9, and the Court’s October 7, 2023 Order (ECF No. 114), Plaintiffs and Stability

4

Defendants1 have met and conferred and hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement in

5

advance of the Case Management Conference scheduled for November 7, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.2

6

I.

JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

7

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to the

8

extent it arises under the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), the

9

Lanham Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. To the extent this action is maintained as a class

10

action and a class is ultimately certified, the Court may also have subject matter jurisdiction under

11

the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In view of the current uncertainty regarding

12

the plaintiff(s), claim(s) and defendant(s) in this action, Stability Defendants reserve any challenge

13

they may have to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

14

All Defendants have been served and filed motions in response to the Complaint without

15

contesting this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Midjourney is

16

headquartered in California and that all Defendants conduct substantial business in California.

17

Thus, it is Plaintiffs’ position that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Stability

18

Defendants reserve any challenge they may have to this Court’s personal jurisdiction over them as

19

to any claim asserted in any amended complaint.

20
21
1

22

As used herein, “Stability Defendants” or “Stability” refers to Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI,
Inc.; “Stability AI” refers to Stability AI Ltd.

23

2

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants DeviantArt, Inc. (“DeviantArt”) and Midjourney, Inc. (“Midjourney”) participated in
the parties’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference prior to the Court’s order suspending
their Rule 26 obligations (ECF No. 95). Given that order, that these defendants’ discovery
obligations are presently stayed (see id.), and that no claims are presently asserted against
DeviantArt and Midjourney (see ECF No. 117 (dismissing claims with leave to amend)), they
have not substantively participated in the preparation of this Joint Case Management Statement.
DeviantArt and Midjourney reserve all rights to object and respond to any proposed pretrial
schedule or statements or representations made by Plaintiffs and/or Stability Defendants herein
during the forthcoming November 7, 2023 Case Management Conference, or otherwise.
- 1-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

II.

FACTS

2

A.

3

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on January 13, 2023. ECF No. 1. The primary basis of the

4

lawsuit is Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, specifically their visual

5

works and their names. On July 19, 2023, this Court held a hearing on Defendants’ responsive

6

motions and took them under submission. See ECF Nos. 49–54, 58–60.3 Pursuant to its tentative

7

ruling at the hearing, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and Stability to comply with their obligations

8

under Rule 26. ECF No. 95. On August 8, 2023, all parties attended a Rule 26(f) Conference, and

9

Plaintiffs filed a report on that conference on August 22, 2023. ECF No. 10.

10

Plaintiffs’ Statement of Facts

Defendants develop and/or offer generative artificial-intelligence based image generation

11

products (“AI Image Products”). AI Image Products are trained on images paired with descriptive

12

text. Training images are typically gathered through web scraping, i.e., copying from websites

13

using software to automate the process. Defendants’ AI Image Products rely on billions of training

14

images, almost all of which are copied without the owners’ consent or knowledge, and without

15

providing the owner or creator credit or compensation.

16

In August 2022, Stability began offering Stable Diffusion, a generative AI model that

17

produces images based on training images, under an open-source license. Stability sells

18

DreamStudio, a product that allows customers to utilize Stable Diffusion without an expensive

19

computing platform or serious technical knowledge. Stability illegally copied and/or acquired

20

unauthorized copies of over five billion images from the Internet. Stability did not attempt to

21

acquire licenses for any of the training images used. Through training, Stable Diffusion embeds

22

and stores compressed copies of the training images and relies on those compressed copies to

23

generate its output. Midjourney trained its AI Image Product on the same training data as Stability.

24

DeviantArt offers a product similar to DreamStudio called DreamUp, which, like DreamStudio,

25

gives customers the ability to interface with and utilize Stable Diffusion. DeviantArt also hosts

26
27
3

28

Further details regarding Defendants’ motions and the hearing are set forth below in section IV.
- 2-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

millions of images that were copied without authorization to become part of Stable Diffusion’s

2

training data.

3

All output from an AI Image Product is necessarily derived from and depends on the

4

breadth and quality of the images used for training. This means that, unlike a human artist, an AI

5

Image Product can only copy latent images tagged with terms associated with the text prompt, and

6

an AI Image Product can never exceed the limitations of its training images. Indeed, Stability’s

7

CEO, Emad Mostaque, admitted Stable Diffusion “compress[e]d the knowledge of over 100

8

terabytes of images.” Mostaque has publicly acknowledged the importance of using licensed

9

images for training AI Image Products. He has promised future versions of Stable Diffusion will

10

be based on “fully licensed” training images. But Stability has yet to take any steps to obtain or

11

negotiate licenses for Stable Diffusion.

12

Plaintiffs’ injuries were the direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct. In

13

addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages, statutory damages,

14

and punitive damages based on Defendants’ oppression, malice, or fraud.

15

B.

16

Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability AI”)4 is at the forefront of the burgeoning generative artificial

17

intelligence (“AI”) industry, rapidly expanding the boundaries of human creativity and capability

18

while maintaining a commitment to make its technology available to all.

19

Stability Defendants’ Statement of Facts

Stable Diffusion is an open-source generative AI text-to-image model that has rapidly

20

become a base model for developers and artists around the world. Generative AI models are

21

“generative” because they can generate complex new content by analyzing vast datasets to

22

understand the relationships between words, concepts, and visual or textual features. This is

23

similar to a student visiting a library to learn the relationships between intellectual concepts, or

24

visiting an art gallery to learn how to match colors or best depict perspective. Users can then input

25
26
27
28

4

Stability AI, Inc. is a non-operating holding company. Accordingly, Stability AI, Inc. has
not performed and is not responsible for the performance of any of the acts alleged in the Complaint
(ECF No. 1).
- 3-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

prompts of their choosing to generative AI models such as Stable Diffusion to create entirely

2

novel images. The learning process for generative AI models is known as training. Stability AI

3

has been involved in various aspects of the development, training and/or release of certain

4

versions of Stable Diffusion.

5
6
7

Dream Studio is a platform that was developed by Stability AI to provide users with access
to the capabilities of Stable Diffusion.
Various versions of Stable Diffusion have been trained by exposure to randomly-selected

8

portions of billions of images that were publicly available on the Internet. Contrary to the

9

pleadings in the Complaint, however, training Stable Diffusion bears no resemblance to creating

10

compressed copies or memorizing images for later distribution. Instead, at a high level, the

11

training for Stable Diffusion involves a component that understands text and a component that

12

generates images. The component that understands text is a special language AI model that takes

13

input text and outputs a list of numbers that represents associations between the text in a

14

mathematical format. That mathematical information is then presented to the component that

15

generates images, and the image generator undergoes a multi-stage process to interpret the

16

mathematical information to a final image. That process involves smaller AI models that are

17

trained so that the distribution of individual elements within images—how pixels are arranged

18

such that the “sky” in images is typically blue and located above the “ground”, “people” have two

19

eyes, and “cats” typically have pointy ears—are learned by the model. With that training, the

20

image generator is able to start with a random, extremely noisy image and gradually modify the

21

noisy image into an entirely new, clear image based on a user’s text prompts. The final result is an

22

AI model that is composed of hundreds of millions or billions of model “weights” or

23

“parameters”—pure numbers that represent in a mathematical format the concepts that are

24

contained in the AI mode—as well as model code, which is the software that can operate the

25

model weights. Neither the model weights nor the model code contains copies (or any other

26

record) of particular images on which the model was trained, beyond the mathematical

27

relationships between concepts that the model learned through the training process and that are

28
- 4-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

embodied in the model weights.

2

The purpose of all this training is not to enable users of Stable Diffusion to reproduce

3

copies of training images. Rather, Stable Diffusion is intended to expand humans’ capacity for

4

creativity. Crucially, Plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged that “none of the Stable Diffusion

5

output images provided in response to a particular Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for

6

any specific image in the training data.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 93.)

7

It is well established, however, that infringement is possible only where a defendant’s

8

work is “substantially similar” to a plaintiff’s work—a possibility that Plaintiffs have expressly

9

conceded is not “likely” here. Nor can Plaintiffs point to anything in the code or weights of the

10

Stable Diffusion model (which are freely available open-source and online), that is substantially

11

similar to their own works. Absent such substantial similarity in either Stable Diffusion itself or

12

the images that Stable Diffusion creates, Plaintiffs’ copyright claim is fundamentally the same as

13

alleging that an art student who views hundreds of paintings before creating a new, entirely novel

14

work has somehow violated the law. In short, Stability Defendants deny any liability for direct or

15

indirect copyright infringement, or any other unlawful conduct of any kind.

16

III.

LEGAL ISSUES

17

A.

18

Plaintiffs anticipate the following legal issues will be argued in this case based on their

19
20

present allegations:


21
22

Whether Defendants violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class when they
downloaded and stored copies of their works.



23
24

Plaintiffs’ Position

Whether Defendants violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class when they used
copies of their works to train AI Image Products.



Whether Defendants vicariously violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class

25

when third parties used Defendants’ products to create Fakes, as defined in the

26

Complaint (ECF No. 1).

27
28
- 5-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO



1

Whether Defendants violated the DMCA by removing copyright management

2

information (“CMI”) from the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s works and/or causing their

3

respective AI Image Products to omit CMI from their output images.


4

Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights of publicity when they

5

designed and marketed their AI Image Products to respond to prompts requesting

6

output images using the names of specific individuals, namely Plaintiffs and the Class.


7
8

Whether Defendants’ AI Image Products are being used by Defendants to engage in
Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act and/or California law.

9



Whether the class should be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10



Whether this Court should enjoin Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct

11

.

alleged herein. And what the scope of that injunction would be.


12

Whether any affirmative defense excuses Defendants’ conduct, including but not

13

limited to whether some or all of Defendants’ conduct is allowed under the fair use

14

doctrine.

15

B.

16

In light of the Court’s October 30, 2023 order granting Stability Defendants’ Motion to

17

Dismiss as to all claims except Plaintiff Andersen’s claim of direct copyright infringement as it

18

relates to the training of Stable Diffusion,5 Stability Defendants provide the following list of

19

principal legal issues currently in dispute, noting that the parties do not agree regarding the

20

importance or relevance of each issue, and that the list is therefore preliminary and subject to

21

revision:

Stability Defendants’ Position

22

1. Whether Stability Defendants directly infringed registered copyrights owned by Plaintiff

23

Sarah Andersen pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 by allegedly copying Training Images during

24

the training of Stable Diffusion;

25
26
27
28

5

While the Court denied Stability Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ declaratory
relief claim, the Court explained that its ruling was based on “the unsettled status of the pleadings
and the evolving nature of plaintiffs’ theories of liability,” and without prejudice to Stability
Defendants’ renewal of such motion. (ECF No. 117 at 24.)
- 6-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

2. Whether Stability Defendants’ alleged conduct caused any injury to Plaintiffs;

2

3. Whether the Plaintiffs can meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for certification of

3

one or more putative classes;

4

4. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the equitable and monetary relief they seek; and

5

5. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief.

6

The parties reserve the right to raise additional issues that become relevant as a result of any

7

new claims, defenses, or counterclaims.

8

IV.

9

MOTIONS
On April 18, 2023, Stability Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

10

P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 58), Midjourney filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike pursuant to Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f) (ECF No. 52), DeviantArt filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 49), and DeviantArt also filed a motion to strike pursuant to Cal. Code

13

Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (ECF No. 50) (the “Motions”). The Motions were fully briefed on July 3,

14

2023, and the Court heard argument on the Motions on July 19, 2023. On October 30, 2023, the

15

Court issued its Order on Motions to Dismiss and Strike (ECF No. 117), wherein it dismissed

16

McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims with prejudice; sustained Plaintiff Andersen’s direct

17

infringement claim against Stability AI for direct copyright infringement, but limited the claim to

18

the collections she has registered; dismissed Plaintiffs’ other claims with leave to amend; denied

19

Midjourney’s motion to strike; and deferred ruling on DeviantArt’s anti-SLAPP motion, given the

20

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ right of publicity claims.

21

On August 3, 2023, in light of the Court’s statements during the July 19, 2023 hearing,

22

Defendants filed an Administrative Motion to Continue Case Management Conference and Stay

23

Discovery Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions. ECF No. 92. On August 8, 2023, the Court

24

granted Defendants’ motion in part, continuing the initial case management conference to

25

September 19, 2023, ordering that this Joint Case Management Statement be filed by September

26

12, 2023, and continuing Rule 26 deadlines as to Defendants Midjourney and DeviantArt. ECF

27

No. 95. This Court has twice continued the case management conference, first from September 19,

28
- 7-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

2023 to October 10, 2023 (ECF No. 111) and then to November 7, 2023 (ECF No. 114). This Joint

2

Case Management Statement supersedes the earlier Joint Case Management Statements filed on

3

September 12, 2023 (ECF No. 110) and October 3, 2023 (ECF No. 113).

4

Stability Defendants anticipate filing additional motions, including pursuant to Rule 12, if

5

appropriate, after the filing of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, if any. Plaintiffs anticipate filing a

6

motion for class certification under Rule 23. The parties anticipate filing motions for summary

7

judgment or adjudication under Rule 56.

8
9
10

Plaintiffs anticipate law and motion practice with respect to discovery issues that cannot be
resolved by consent.
V.

11

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
This Court’s Order on Motions to Dismiss and Strike (ECF No. 117), sets the deadline for

12

Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as thirty days from the date of the order, meaning

13

November 29, 2023. Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint by that date.

14

Stability Defendants propose that the amendment of pleadings be governed by the Federal

15

Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

VI.

17

EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
The parties certify that they have reviewed the Court’s Guidelines Relating to the

18

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, are aware of their obligations, and have taken

19

appropriate steps to preserve potentially relevant evidence. The parties confirm they have met and

20

conferred concerning such obligations.

21

Plaintiffs are not aware of any potentially relevant evidence that has been destroyed or that

22

is not reasonably accessible. At the Rule 26 conference and subsequently, Plaintiffs asked

23

Defendants to confirm whether any material subject to discovery has been destroyed or is not

24

reasonably accessible. See Northern District ESI Discovery Guidelines § 2.01 (Preservation) ¶ (e)

25

(“The parties should discuss what ESI from sources that are not reasonably accessible will be

26

preserved, but not searched, reviewed, or produced.”), § 2.02 (Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer), ¶ A.

27

(parties should discuss “[t]he sources, scope and type of ESI that has been and will be preserved.”)

28
- 8-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

& ¶ B (parties should discuss “Any difficulties related to preservation.”). Stability Defendants

2

stated they are not aware of any relevant Stability Defendants’ information that has been destroyed

3

since the filing of the complaint in this case but cannot represent that potentially relevant

4

information was not destroyed in the ordinary course of business prior to that time. Stability

5

Defendants further advised Plaintiffs that Stability AI maintains massive volumes of data in the

6

ordinary course of its business, that some data may not be readily identified or accessed, and that

7

cost and technological limitations may interfere with long-term preservation efforts. Plaintiffs

8

suggested that the parties table further discussion regarding sources, scope or type of ESI retention

9

and/or production until a later date and have not yet raised the topic again since that time.

10

Midjourney and DeviantArt did not identify any material that has been destroyed or is not

11

reasonably accessible. Plaintiffs are seeking clarity as to these issues and may seek relief from the

12

Court.

13

VII.

DISCLOSURES

14

Plaintiffs served their Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures on August 22, 2023. Stability

15

Defendants served their Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures on September 12, 2023. Midjourney’s and

16

DeviantArt’s obligations under Rule 26 are currently continued, as discussed above.

17

VIII. DISCOVERY

18

The parties have not yet served discovery requests.

19

A.

20

Plaintiffs have shared or intend to share drafts of the following proposed stipulated

21

agreements likely necessary for discovery to commence, particularly documentary discovery.: (1)

22

a stipulated protective order for material that must be kept confidential, (2) an ESI protocol, and

23

(3) an expert discovery agreement.

24

Plaintiffs’ Position

Plaintiffs anticipate the discovery process will require considerable time by all participants

25

and active case management. To ensure this case proceeds at a reasonable pace and because

26

Plaintiffs will likely have a sustained claim against Stability on a core issue, Plaintiffs believe

27

beginning the discovery process with Stability now would be most efficient. Stable Diffusion and

28
- 9-

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

its training material are at the core of Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants. It would not be

2

wasteful for Plaintiffs to request relevant information and begin negotiations with Stability as to

3

the details of their search and production.

4

B.

5

In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motions and the “unsettled status of the pleadings and

Stability Defendants’ Position

6

the evolving nature of plaintiffs’ theories of liability” (ECF No. 117 at 24), Stability Defendants

7

believe that it is premature at this time to consider either the scope of anticipated discovery or any

8

potential limitations or modifications of the discovery rules. Any amended complaint filed by

9

Plaintiffs, and any subsequent motion practice regarding its sufficiency, may significantly impact

10

the scope of this action, including the number of Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the number of

11

claims that remain in the case. Moreover, the Court’s October 30, 2023 order on the Motions

12

expresses substantial doubt about Plaintiffs’ core theories of liability. Defendants similarly believe

13

consideration of a stipulated e-discovery order, a proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

14

P. 26(f) and any potential discovery disputes would be premature at this time.

15

IX.

16
17
18

CLASS ACTION
All attorneys of record have reviewed the Court’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action

Settlements.
Plaintiffs assert claims for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all

19

others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the

20

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following classes:

21

“Injunctive Relief Class” under Rule 23(b)(2): All persons or entities nationalized and/or

22

domiciled in the United States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used to train any

23

version of an AI Image Product that was offered directly and/or incorporated into another product

24

by one or more Defendants during the Class Period.

25

“Damages Class” under Rule 23(b)(3): All persons or entities nationalized and/or

26

domiciled in the United States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used to train any

27

version of an AI Image Product that was offered directly and/or incorporated into another product

28
- 10 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

by one or more Defendants during the Class Period.

2

“DeviantArt Damages Subclass” under Rule 23(b)(3): All members of the Damages

3

Class who (1) maintained an account on DeviantArt; (2) posted copyrighted work on DeviantArt;

4

and (3) had that work used to train any version of an AI Image Product.

5

A.

6

Plaintiffs propose class certification be briefed and decided at the close of fact and expert

7

discovery and before motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have provided a schedule setting

8

forth proposed dates through trial below.

9

B.

Plaintiffs’ Position

Stability Defendants’ Position

10

Stability Defendants contend that this action should not be certified as a class action and is

11

not aware of facts showing that Plaintiffs (much less Plaintiff Andersen, individually) are entitled

12

to maintain the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). Stability Defendants further believe

13

that in light of the unsettled status of the pleadings and the evolving nature of Plaintiffs’ theories

14

of liability it is premature to consider the appropriate timing of how and when class certification

15

will proceed (if at all). Stability Defendants intend to oppose any motion for class certification at

16

the appropriate time and further intend to request that the issue of class certification be bifurcated

17

and that all remaining issues be stayed pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for

18

class certification.

19

X.

20

RELATED CASES
Stability Defendants identify Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI,

21

Inc., No. 23-cv-00135, filed on February 3, 2023, and currently pending in the United States

22

District Court for the District of Delaware. Stability Defendants moved to dismiss Getty Images

23

(US), Inc.’s Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, inability to join a necessary and

24

indispensable party, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, in the

25

alternative, requested that the action be transferred to the Northern District of California pursuant

26

to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 or § 1404(a). Stability Defendants’ motion is pending before the court.

27

Stability Defendants further identify Getty Images (US) Inc et al. v. Stability AI Ltd, Claim

28
- 11 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

No. IL-2023-000007, which is currently pending in the High Court of Justice, Business and

2

Property Courts of England and Wales.

3

Plaintiffs are unaware of any other cases involving Defendants’ AI Image Products other

4

than those set forth above. Plaintiffs reserve opining on whether either of the two Getty cases are

5

related to this case until these issues are before this Court, if ever.

6

XI.

RELIEF

7

A.

8

As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek statutory, compensatory, and punitive

9

Plaintiffs’ Position

damages on behalf of themselves and a putative class for Defendants’ unauthorized use of their

10

copyrighted material, DMCA violations, right of publicity violations, and various other wrongful

11

acts by Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to

12

ignore their rights in offering their AI Image Products and to stop further use of Plaintiffs’

13

property to create new AI Image Products.

14

B.

15

Stability Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, and contend that the case

16

should be dismissed. Stability Defendants deny liability and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any of

17

the relief sought. Stability Defendants do not seek relief or damages from any party at this time.

18

XII.

19

Stability Defendants’ Position

SETTLEMENT AND ADR
No settlements have been reached by the parties. Plaintiffs are willing to participate in a

20

settlement conference with a magistrate judge currently assigned to the Northern District of

21

California. Plaintiffs are open to other forms of non-binding ADR, such as mediation, and will be

22

prepared to discuss ADR options at the upcoming conference. The parties will be prepared to

23

discuss ADR options and seek the Court’s guidance at the November 7, 2023 conference.

24

Plaintiffs, Stability Defendants and DeviantArt have filed declarations in compliance with

25

ADR L.R. 3-5(b).

26

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

27

Stability Defendants did not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes.

28
- 12 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

ECF No. 14. Accordingly, the case was re-assigned to the Honorable Judge William H. Orrick,

2

currently presiding over this case. ECF No. 18.

3

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES

4
5

This case is not suitable for reference to other courts or administrative bodies.
XV.

6

NARROWING OF ISSUES
The parties have not identified any issues that can be narrowed at this juncture but will

7

meet and confer on any such issues as they arise.

8

XVI. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE

9
10

The parties do not consent to the Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64.
XVII. SCHEDULING

11

In light of the Court’s October 30, 2023 order on the Motions and the unsettled status of

12

the pleadings, Stability Defendants believe that it is premature at this time to consider the schedule

13

on which this action should proceed. Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs, and any

14

subsequent motion practice regarding its sufficiency, may significantly impact the scope of this

15

action, including the number of Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the number of claims that remain in

16

the case. Moreover, the Court’s October 30, 2023 order on the Motions expresses substantial

17

doubt about Plaintiffs’ core theories of liability.

18
19

Plaintiffs believe this complex class action will benefit from active case management,
including setting a schedule through trial. Plaintiffs propose the following schedule:6

20

Case Event
Deadline to file Amended Complaint
Deadline for responses to FAC
Deadline for oppositions to motions
responding to FAC
Deadline for replies in support of motions
responding to FAC

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Date
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Friday, January 12, 2024
Friday, February 23, 2024
Friday, March 22, 2024

6

While, as noted above, Stability Defendants believe it is premature at this time to consider
the schedule on which this action should proceed, Stability Defendants expect that the parties will
be able to reach an agreement regarding the timing for responses to Plaintiffs’ anticipated
amended complaint, and any oppositions and replies to any motions filed in response to such
amended complaint.
- 13 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Hearing on motions responding to FAC
Close of fact discovery including nonexpert depositions
Deadline for Plaintiffs’ expert reports
Deadline for Defendants’ expert reports
Deadline for Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert
reports
Close of expert discovery
Deadline for motions for class certification,
and Daubert motions
Deadline for oppositions to class
certification, and Daubert motions
Deadline for replies in support of motions
for class certification, and Daubert motions
Class certification and Daubert hearing
Deadline for motions for summary
judgment.
Deadline for oppositions to motions for
summary judgment.
Deadline for replies in support of motions
for summary judgment.
Summary judgment hearing
Deadline for parties to exchange papers
described in Civil L.R. 16-10(b)(7), (8), (9)
and (10) and any motions in limine
Deadline for parties to meet and confer re
pretrial matters
Deadline for joint pre-trial statement
Final pre-trial conference
Trial Begins

To be set by the court
Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Thursday, July 10, 2025
Monday, August 11, 2025
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Thursday, October 9, 2025
Thursday, November 6, 2025
Friday, December 19, 2025
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
To be set by Court
Monday, March 9, 2026
Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Thursday, May 21, 2026
To be set by Court
Monday, August 3, 2026
Monday, August 10, 2026
Monday, August 17, 2026
Monday, August 31, 2026
Tuesday, September 8, 2026

XVIII. TRIAL
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs expect a trial will take three to four weeks
as the case presently stands.
Stability Defendants believe it is premature to estimate the length of trial at this time.
XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
All parties have filed any Certifications of Interested Entities or Persons required by
Civil L.R. 3-15.
Stability Defendants: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Stability AI Ltd. certifies that it is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Stability AI, Inc. Stability AI, Inc. certifies that it has no parent

28
- 14 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1

corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. Pursuant to Civil

2

L.R. 3-15, Stability Defendants certify that other than the named parties, no entity has a pecuniary

3

interest in the outcome of this case.

4

XX.

5
6

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
The parties attest that all attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines

for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Dated: October 31, 2023

Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
Louis A. Kessler (State Bar No. 243703)
Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
Travis Manfredi (State Bar No. 281779)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Matthew Butterick (State Bar No. 250953)
1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Brian D. Clark (pro hac vice)
Laura M. Matson (pro hac vice)
Eura Chang (pro hac vice)
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1
2
3
4
5

By: /s/ Paul M. Schoenhard
Mark A. Lemley (State Bar No. 155830)
LEX LUMINA PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Nicole M. Jantzi (pro hac vice)
Paul M. Schoenhard (pro hac vice)
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
11

Michael C. Keats (pro hac vice)
Amir R. Ghavi (pro hac vice)
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17

Counsel for Defendants Stability AI, Inc. and
Stability AI Ltd.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By:

/s/ Brittany N. Lovejoy
Andrew M. Gass (SBN 259694)
Michael H. Rubin (SBN 214636)
Brittany N. Lovejoy (SBN 286813)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant DeviantArt, Inc.

28
- 17 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

1
2
3
4
5

By:

/s/ Angela L. Dunning
Angela L. Dunning (SBN 212047)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
1841 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1254
T: [phone]
[e-mail]

6
7

Counsel for Defendant Midjourney, Inc.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2
3

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(h)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in
the filing of the foregoing document has been obtained from all other signatories to this document.

4
5

Dated: October 31, 2023

By:

/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO