Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al

Filing 178

RESPONSE re 161 Request for Judicial Notice and Consideration of Documents Incorporated by Reference in Support of Defendant Midjourney's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by Sarah Andersen, Gerald Brom, Adam Ellis, Julia Kaye, Gregory Manchess, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Grzegorz Rutkowski, H Southworth, Jingna Zhang. (Saveri, Joseph) (Filed on 3/21/2024) Modified on 3/22/2024 (kmm2, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
David W. Lerch (State Bar No. 229411)
Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
Kathleen J. McMahon (State Bar No. 340007)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 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]

14

Counsel for Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

15

[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18
19
20

SARAH ANDERSEN, et al.,

Case No. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs,
v.

21
22
23
24
25
26

STABILITY AI, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND
CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
MIDJOURNEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Date: May 8, 2024
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Videoconference
Before: Hon. William H. Orrick

27
28
30
31
31

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

3

II.

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 1

4

A.

5
6
7
8

B.

9
10
11
12

III.

The Proposed Exhibits are Not Incorporated by Reference and are Being
Introduced Merely to Dispute Plaintiffs’ Well-Pleaded Allegations. ..................... 2
1.

It is improper to assume the truth of the contents of Exhibit 1. ................. 2

2.

It is improper to incorporate Exhibits 2 or 3 and, in the alternative,
improper to assume the truth of the contents therein. ............................... 3

The Truth of the Contents of Exhibits 1-4 Should Not be Judicially Noticed. ...... 4
1.

The Court should not take judicial notice of documents for truth of the
matters asserted therein when facts are disputed....................................... 4

2.

The Court may not consider a transcript from an outside proceeding for
the truth of the matter asserted. ................................................................. 5

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 6

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
i
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Cases

3

Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 857 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ....................................................4

4
5

Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Cal. 2011)....................... 1, 6

6

Cal. Sportfishing Protection All. v. Shiloh Grp., LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (N.D.
Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................................................................4

7

Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 5

8
9

Gallagher v. Bayer AG, No. 14-CV-04601-WHO, 2015 WL 1056480 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 10, 2015) ........................................................................................................................ 5, 6

10

In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig., 457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ......................................... 1

11

Jen v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 15-CV-03834-HSG, 2016 WL 3669985 (N.D. Cal.
July 11, 2016) ..............................................................................................................................6

12
13

Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-CV-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023) ...........................6

14

Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................... passim

15

Love v. Ashford San Francisco II LP, No. 20-CV-08458-EMC, 2021 WL 1428372
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 5

16
17
18
19
20

Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006).................................................................................2
Morrison v. Peterson, No. C 11-1896 LHK PR, 2013 WL 942723 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11,
2013)...........................................................................................................................................6
Nelson v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D Cal. 2022) .................................4

21

Pirani v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-CV-02672-JST, 2024 WL 69069 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2024) .......................................................................................................................................... 1

22

Reynolds v. Binance Holdings Ltd., 481 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ................................... 3, 4

23
24
25
26

Rollins v. Dignity Health, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................ 4, 5
Smith v. Kohlweiss, Inc., No. C 11-00239 SBA, 2012 WL 1156338, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 30, 2012) ...........................................................................................................................6

27

Thompson v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., No. 12-CV-01301-JST, 2013 WL 1808897
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)...........................................................................................................6

28

United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................4

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
ii
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1
2

Whitaker v. Montes, No. 21-CV-00679-EMC, 2021 WL 1839713 (N.D. Cal. May 7,
2021) .......................................................................................................................................... 5

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
28
30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
iii
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION
Faced with Plaintiffs’ sufficiently alleged First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Defendant

3

Midjourney Inc. (“Midjourney”) attempts to improperly bolster its motion to dismiss by asking

4

the Court to consider documents beyond the four corners of the complaint. Namely,

5

Midjourney’s Request for Judicial Notice and Consideration of Documents Incorporated by

6

Reference, Doc. 161 (the “RJN”), seeks to incorporate by reference and/or notice two

7

screenshots of a Discord message thread, a screenshot of a page on the Midjourney website, and a

8

transcript from a hearing in a separate case. RJN at 2; Exs. 1-4.

9

Although the FAC references some of the materials that Defendant seeks to incorporate

10

or notice, neither Exhibits 2 nor 3 are “central” to Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claim against

11

Midjourney. Further, Defendant aspires to use Exhibits 1-3 for the sole purpose of contesting

12

Plaintiffs’ factual allegations and in clear contravention of the Court’s obligation at the motion to

13

dismiss stage to “assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and . . . draw all reasonable

14

inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 799,

15

810 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Defendant’s arguments to judicially notice the truth of facts within Exhibits

16

1-4 also fail. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court heed the warning of the Ninth Circuit

17

Court of Appeals to avoid “the unscrupulous use of extrinsic documents to resolve competing

18

theories against the complaint” at the risk of “premature dismissals of plausible claims that may

19

turn out to be valid after discovery.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th

20

Cir. 2018).

21

II.

ARGUMENT

22

In general, courts “may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule

23

12(b)(6) motion.” Pirani v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-CV-02672-JST, 2024 WL 69069, at *6 (N.D. Cal.

24

Jan. 5, 2024) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011)).

25

However, two doctrines allow a court to consider material beyond the complaint: incorporation by

26

reference in the complaint and judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. In re Google

27

Assistant Priv. Litig., 457 F. Supp. 3d 797, 812 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Regardless, the Ninth Circuit has

28

warned that “[i]f defendants are permitted to present their own version of the facts at the

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
1
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

pleading stage—and district courts accept those facts as uncontroverted and true—it becomes

2

near impossible for even the most aggrieved plaintiff to demonstrate a sufficiently ‘plausible’

3

claim for relief.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

4
5
6

A.

The Proposed Exhibits are Not Incorporated by Reference and are Being
Introduced Merely to Dispute Plaintiffs’ Well-Pleaded Allegations.

Incorporation by reference is a “judicially created doctrine that treats certain documents

7

as though they are part of the complaint itself.” Id. at 1002. “A court may consider evidence on

8

which the complaint ‘necessarily relies’ if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the

9

document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the

10

copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.” Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006)

11

(quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453–54 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by

12

Galbraith v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002)). Although it is “generally true”

13

that a court may assume the truth of the contents of an incorporated document, it is also

14

“improper to assume the truth of an incorporated document if such assumptions only serve to

15

dispute facts stated in a well-pleaded complaint.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1003 (emphasis added); see also

16

id. (“[W]hat inferences a court may draw from an incorporated document should . . . be

17

approached with caution.”).

18

Defendant Midjourney requests that the Court consider three documents on the grounds

19

that they have been incorporated by reference in the FAC. Midjourney RJN at 2. Two of these

20

documents are screenshots of messages in a public Discord message board, see Midjourney RJN,

21

Exs. 1, 2, and a screenshot of a page on Midjourney’s website. Id. at Ex. 3.

22
23

1.

It is improper to assume the truth of the contents of Exhibit 1.

The purpose of Midjourney’s request to incorporate Exhibit 1 is solely to contest the

24

factual allegations contained in the FAC. The FAC clearly alleges that Midjourney used the

25

names of artists to promote the capabilities of its image generator and that the name list created a

26

likelihood of confusion over the association that the Midjourney Plaintiffs had with the image

27

product. FAC at ¶¶ 304-17. Midjourney seeks to rely on Exhibit 1 in its motion to dismiss to

28

contradict Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, an entirely improper tactic at this pre-discovery stage of

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
2
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

litigation. For this reason, the Court should reject Defendant’s motion to admit Exhibit 1. See

2

Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1003 (“[I]t is improper to assume the truth of an incorporated document if

3

such assumptions only serve to dispute facts stated in a well-pleaded complaint.”).

4
5
6

2.

It is improper to incorporate Exhibits 2 or 3 and, in the alternative,
improper to assume the truth of the contents therein.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs dispute Midjourney’s contention that either Exhibit 2

7

or 3 are “central” to the direct copyright claim against Midjourney. RJN at 3. The claim that

8

Midjourney Model v. 5.2 could reproduce protected expression does not “necessarily depend[]”

9

on the exhibits. See Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002 (citing Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.

10

2005)). In fact, the FAC also makes allegations that the Midjourney Model can output works that

11

are “obvious variations” and “substantially similar” to the plaintiffs’ works. See FAC ¶¶ 174, 176.

12

Further, Defendant is transparent in its attempt to incorporate Exhibits 2 and 3 for the

13

purpose of disputing the FAC’s well-pleaded allegation that Midjourney’s AI product’s image-

14

prompt feature “look as the ‘concepts’ and ‘vibes’” of the input image. Midjourney RJN at 3-4;

15

FAC ¶ 188. This type of maneuver is a primary example of what the Khoja court warned

16

against—the use of documents “to resolve competing theories against the complaint” at the

17

“risk[ of ] premature dismissal[] of plausible claims that may turn out to be valid after discovery.”

18

Khoja, 899 F.3d at 998 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs wholly disagree with Defendant’s interpretation

19

that the contents of Exhibits 2 and 3 demonstrate that the “concept and vibes” language

20

describes the /blend command, as opposed to the image-prompting feature. Midjourney RJN at

21

3. In fact, Exhibit 3 itself clearly states that, “[t]he /blend command is a simplified image

22

prompting process optimized for mobile users.” Ex. 3 at 2. Defendant’s attempt to smear the

23

integrity of the FAC by claiming that “the cited Discord post . . . makes clear that it does not say

24

what plaintiffs claim” is not only inaccurate but, most importantly, asks the Court to improperly

25

weigh factual information at the motion to dismiss stage. See Reynolds v. Binance Holdings Ltd.,

26

481 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court may not take judicial notice of the

27

facts contained in the articles.”).

28

For these reasons, the Court should decline to incorporate Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
3
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

B.

The Truth of the Contents of Exhibits 1-4 Should Not be Judicially Noticed.

2

Judicial notice is a limited rule of evidence that allows the court or the finder of fact to

3

consider adjudicative facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute.” United States v. Ritchie,

4

342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Courts may take judicial

5

notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute because it: ‘(1) is generally known within

6

the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from

7

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” Reynolds, 481 F. Supp. 3d at 1002

8

(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). But, as Midjourney’s RJN conveniently omits, “[c]ourts may take

9

judicial notice of ‘undisputed matters of public record,’ but generally may not take judicial notice

10

of ‘disputed facts stated in public records.’” Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 857, 866

11

(N.D. Cal. 2022) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001)).

12
13

1.

The Court should not take judicial notice of documents for truth of the
matters asserted therein when facts are disputed.

14

Despite Defendant’s insinuations to the contrary, “[a] document is not judicially

15

noticeable simply because it appears on a publicly available website.” Nelson v. F. Hoffmann-La

16

Roche, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1126-27 (N.D Cal. 2022); see also Rollins v. Dignity Health, 338 F.

17

Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“[T]his Court rejects the notion that a document is

18

judicially noticeable simply because it appears on a publicly available website, regardless of who

19

maintains the website or the purpose of the document.”). Contrary to Midjourney’s assertion

20

that an online message board and a Defendant-created website are akin to a matter of public

21

record, the case law is clear that “courts should be cautious before taking judicial notice of

22

documents simply because they were published on a website.” Rollins, 338 F. Supp. 3d at 1033.

23

The Court’s caution should be particularly heightened “when a party seeks to introduce

24

documents it created and posted on its own website.” Id.

25

Further, unlike documents incorporated into a complaint, “[c]ourts cannot take judicial

26

notice of the contents of documents for the truth of the matters asserted therein when the facts

27

are disputed.” Cal. Sportfishing Protection All. v. Shiloh Grp., LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1038

28

(N.D. Cal. 2017); see id. at 1039 (taking judicial notice of a printout of a website, “but only as to

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
4
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

the existence of the document, the date of the document, and the existence of the contents

2

therein because the facts contained in the document are disputed”) (emphasis added).

3

Importantly, although Midjourney argues that “[c]ourts regularly take judicial notice” of

4

information on webpages referenced in a complaint, see Midjourney RJN at 4, the courts in

5

Midjourney’s cited cases limited their notice to the existence of the webpages, but not the

6

truthfulness of the contents therein. See Whitaker v. Montes, No. 21-CV-00679-EMC, 2021 WL

7

1839713, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2021) (noticing the existence of accessibility features on

8

defendant’s website sufficient to satisfy American with Disabilities Act requirements, but not the

9

truth of whether those accessibility features actually existed); Love v. Ashford S.F. II LP, No. 20-

10

CV-08458-EMC, 2021 WL 1428372, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021) (granting uncontested

11

request to notice website to determine adequacy of accessibility feature descriptions per ADA

12

requirements, but did consider truth of website contents); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629

13

F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (noticing a list of vendors “displayed publicly” on school district

14

website for their existence, but not for their truth, in ERISA compliance case); Gallagher v. Bayer

15

AG, No. 14-CV-04601-WHO, 2015 WL 1056480, at *3 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015) (judicially

16

noticing screenshot following request of both parties but not truth of facts within screenshot).

17

Defendant Midjourney seeks to improperly notice Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 for the purpose of

18

factually rebutting the sufficiently pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC. See Rollins, 338 F. Supp.

19

3d at 1031 (“Defendants repeatedly do what Khoja [899 F.3d at 988-99] forbids—ask the Court to

20

take judicial notice of documents that they then use as a basis to challenge the factual averments

21

in the complaint.”). The Court should limit its notice of Exhibits 1 through 3 solely for their

22

existence and not for the truth of the matters asserted therein. To notice the truth of these

23

exhibits would improperly exceed the bounds of judicial notice.

24
25
26

2.

The Court may not consider a transcript from an outside proceeding
for the truth of the matter asserted.

Midjourney attempts to smuggle in factual information from the transcript of proceedings

27

in a separate case. Midjourney RJN at 5 (citing Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-CV-03417-

28

VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023)). However, courts in in this district routinely decline similar

30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
5
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1

requests to notice the truth of matters addressed in the transcripts of trial or other court

2

proceedings. See Anschutz Corp., 785 F. Supp. 2d at 834 (granting judicial notice of a hearing

3

transcript “for the purpose of noting the Court’s decision, but not for the truth of the facts

4

recited therein”); Thompson v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., No. 12-CV-01301-JST, 2013 WL

5

1808897, at *4 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013) (“The Court does not assume the truth of any

6

factual assertions or legal arguments made at the hearing, but merely takes notice of what was

7

said.”); Jen v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 15-CV-03834-HSG, 2016 WL 3669985, at *4

8

(N.D. Cal. July 11, 2016) (“[T]he Court will not take notice of facts from other proceedings for

9

the truth of the matters they assert.”). Midjourney’s contention that the “contents of that

10

transcript cannot be subject to reasonable dispute,” Midjourney RJN at 5, is of no consequence

11

because the doctrine of judicial notice is limited, regardless of whether the document is a matter

12

of public record. See Khoja, 899 F.3d at 998-99 (“The overuse and improper application of

13

judicial notice and the incorporation-by-reference doctrine … can lead to unintended and harmful

14

results.”). This Court has, on numerous occasions, refused to “take judicial notice of the veracity

15

of any arguments or facts presented in the documents subject to judicial notice.” Smith v.

16

Kohlweiss, Inc., No. C 11-00239 SBA, 2012 WL 1156338, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (listing

17

cases); see also Morrison v. Peterson, No. C 11-1896 LHK PR, 2013 WL 942723, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal.

18

Mar. 11, 2013) (same; listing cases). Because the Court’s notice of the Kadrey transcript would be

19

limited, Plaintiffs do not see how Exhibit 3 is relevant to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and,

20

therefore, request that the Court deny this request. See Gallagher, 2015 WL 1056480 at *3 n.1

21

(request for judicial notice was moot where material was “irrelevant” to the motion to dismiss

22

analysis).

23

III.

24

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to deny Midjourney’s

25

request to incorporate by reference in the complaint and judicially notice Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. In

26

the alternative, the Court should decline to notice the truth of the matters asserted within these

27

Exhibits.

28
30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
6
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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

Dated: March 21, 2024

Respectfully Submitted,
By:

/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri

Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
David W. Lerch (State Bar No. 229411)
Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
Kathleen J. McMahon (State Bar No. 340007)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 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)
Arielle S. Wagner (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]
[e-mail]

28
30
31
31
32

Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
7
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIDJOURNEY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE