Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc.

Filing 26

REDACTED VERSION of 25 Letter by Getty Images (US), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - E)(Vrana, Robert)

EXHIBIT A
(Redacted)

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STABILITY AI, LTD. and
STABILITY AI, INC.,

C.A. No. 23-135 (GBW)

Defendants.

STABILITY AI LTD.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S JURISDICTIONAL REQUESTS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
Defendant Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability UK”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby
submits these Responses and Objections (the “Responses and Objections”) to Plaintiff’s
Jurisdictional Requests for the Production of Documents to Defendant Stability AI Ltd.
(“Requests”), dated May 11, 2023, in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, on the grounds that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it, as set
forth in Stability UK’s pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this Action (ECF No. 16). Stability
UK further objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and definition therein,
on the grounds that Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) has not pled “with reasonable
particularity” factual allegations showing that Stability UK might have the necessary contacts with

1

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
the Delaware forum to establish personal jurisdiction, making jurisdictional discovery improper.
Aldossari on Behalf of Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 F.4th 236, 259 (3d Cir. 2022) (“A plaintiff cannot
show up in court with bare allegations and force defendants to start handing over evidence. Rather,
jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when the plaintiff presents factual allegations that suggest
with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between the party and
the forum state.”) (cleaned up). Stability UK further objects to the Requests as premature, as the
parties have not yet engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the discovery phase of this
action has not yet begun, and the Court has not ordered or otherwise authorized the parties to
engage in any preliminary discovery. The production of any documents or information is not a
waiver of such objections or representation that Stability UK agrees that Getty Images has
sufficiently pleaded the possible existence of the requisite contacts, that the Court may properly
exercise personal jurisdiction over it in this action, or that any jurisdictional discovery is necessary
or appropriate. Stability UK reserves the right to rescind, revise, supplement, amend, or otherwise
modify these Responses and Objections in light of any Court order regarding jurisdictional
discovery or Stability UK’s pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this Action.
2.

Stability UK provides these Responses only as the Requests may relate to the

limited issue of personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. To the extent this action proceeds to the
discovery phase and Plaintiff continues to seek documents in response to the Requests, Stability
UK reserves its rights to amend or supplement these Responses and/or further object and respond
to the Requests on additional grounds.
3.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to impose obligations greater than those allowed
under, or that are inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil

2

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or any other
applicable rules or law governing the scope of discovery (the “Applicable Rules”).
4.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, duplicative, unduly
burdensome, or seek documents or information that is not relevant or proportional to the limited
issue of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability
UK.
5.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require the disclosure of information that Stability
UK is restricted from disclosing by law or by contract. Stability UK further objects to the
Requests, and to each and every instruction and definition therein, to the extent they seek the
production of documents and communications that contain attorney-client communications, are
protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege, contain trade secrets and
or proprietary business information, are prohibited from disclosure by the European General Data
Protection Regulation (2016/679) (the “GDPR”) or other European data privacy laws, would
impinge on privacy rights of non-parties, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under
applicable laws or rules (collectively, “Protected Information”). Any inadvertent disclosure of
Protected Information in response to a Request will not be deemed a waiver of any such privileges
or protections for that document or for the class or category of documents from which it has been
drawn. Stability UK reserves the right to obtain the return of such information and prohibit its use
in any manner. Stability UK hereby requests the return of any Protected Information that is
inadvertently produced and reserves the right to object to the disclosure or use of such Protected
Information at any stage of the Action or any other proceedings.

3

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
6.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they purport to seek documents not in Stability UK’s
possession, custody, or control, that are publicly available, or that are equally available to Plaintiff
or already in Plaintiff’s possession.
7.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they request production of “all” or “any” documents or information
when a lesser subset of documents or information would be sufficient to show the pertinent
information, or where only a lesser subset is relevant to the claims or defenses in this action, on
the grounds that such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
8.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require Stability UK to perform anything more than
a reasonable and diligent search for documents where responsive documents reasonably would be
expected to be found on the grounds that such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
proportional to the needs of the case.
9.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they inquire into matters beyond the scope of disclosure
permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
10.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they are duplicative or cumulative.
11.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the creation of new documents, reports,
spreadsheets or data compilations.

4

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
12.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they incorporate purported facts. Stability UK does not adopt
or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts so incorporated.
13.

Stability UK objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the production of electronically stored information
from sources that are not reasonably accessible or where retrieval of such material is unduly
burdensome, including but not limited to the production of electronically stored information from
legacy systems, from sources that are maintained for disaster recovery purposes, or from sources
that are not reasonably believed to contain unique non-duplicative information.
14.

No objection or limitation, or lack thereof, made in these Responses and Objections

shall be deemed (i) an admission by Stability UK as to the existence or non-existence of documents
or information requested; (ii) an admission that documents are within Stability UK’s possession,
custody or control; (iii) an admission that documents are relevant or admissible in connection with
any trial, hearing, motion, or other proceeding in this action or any other action; or (iv) a waiver
of Stability UK’s right to assert such objection or limitation at any future time in connection with
the Requests or otherwise.
15.

Stability UK expressly reserves all further objections as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privileged status, or admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, of any
information provided in response to the Requests, as well as the right to object to further discovery
relating to the subject matter of any information provided, including the right to move the Court
to quash the Requests or for a protective order.

5

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
16.

Stability UK objects to the “Definitions” insofar as they incorporate purported

facts. Stability UK does not adopt or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts incorporated in
any of the Definitions.
17.

Stability UK objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Stability AI, Inc.” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability UK understands “Stability AI, Inc.” to mean Stability AI, Inc.
18.

Stability UK objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “You,” and “Your” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability UK understands “Stability AI, Ltd.,” “You,” and “Your” to mean Stability AI
Ltd.
OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
19.

Stability UK objects to Instruction Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the extent that they

purport to seek the production of original documents and/or documents, including electronically
stored information, in a particular form or in more than one form and to the extent that they purport
to impose requirements (including the provision of details regarding documents) that are greater
than or different from those required by the Applicable Rules. Stability UK will produce
documents in a reasonable format consistent with District of Delaware practice or as otherwise
agreed upon with Plaintiff.
20.

Stability UK objects to Instruction Nos. 10, 11, and 12 to the extent that they

purport to impose a duty of supplementation or purport to require the production of documents for

6

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
an extended and open-ended period of time. Notwithstanding, Stability UK reserves the right to
modify, supplement, or amend any or all of these responses and objections, if necessary or
appropriate, and to produce additional responsive, non-privileged documents, if they are located.
Any supplemental production by Stability UK in response to the Requests is not an
acknowledgement of any duty of supplementation.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
RFP NO. 1:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Ltd.’s corporate structure since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 1:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK will produce

RFP NO. 2:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Ltd.’s capital structure since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 2:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

7

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 3:
All Stability AI, Ltd. shareholder meeting minutes.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 3:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” shareholder meeting minutes.
RFP NO. 4:
Invitations and agendas for all Stability AI, Ltd. shareholder meetings.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 4:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “invitations” and “agendas.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not
attempt any level of proportionality, and broadly seeks “all” invitations and agendas for
shareholder meetings.
RFP NO. 5:
All Stability AI, Ltd. board minutes and board or corporate resolutions and presentations.

8

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 5:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” board minutes and board or corporate resolutions and
presentations.
RFP NO. 6:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Ltd.’s management organizational structure and
any changes thereto since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 6:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “management organizational structure.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 7:
All Documents concerning the formation of Stability AI, Inc.

9

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 7:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the formation.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Stability UK additionally objects to this
Request on the ground that it seeks documents not within Stability UK’s possession, custody, or
control.
RFP NO. 8:
All Documents concerning the formation of Stability AI US Services Corporation.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 8:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the formation.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Stability UK additionally objects to this
Request on the ground that it seeks documents not within Stability UK’s possession, custody, or
control.

10

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 9:
All Documents concerning the corporate relationship between and among Stability AI, Inc.
and Stability AI, Ltd., including how decisions and business plans are made and sharing of
resources such as office space.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 9:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “all document concerning the corporate relationship.” Stability UK further objects to
this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored
or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court my properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 10:
All Documents concerning the corporate relationship between and among Stability AI, Ltd.
and Stability AI US Services Corporation, including how decisions and business plans are made
and sharing of resources such as office space.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 10:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “all document concerning the corporate relationship.” Stability UK further objects to
this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored

11

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 11:
Any indemnification agreements, guarantees, recourse documents, and/or obligations
between and/or among Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 11:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “recourse documents” and “obligations.” Stability UK further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 12:
Stability AI, Ltd.’s monthly financial statements.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 12:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 13:
Stability AI, Ltd.’s quarterly and yearly budgets.

12

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 13:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 14:
Documents sufficient to show all of Stability AI, Ltd.’s current and historical operating
expenses.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 14:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 15:
All annual reports for Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 15:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

13

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK will produce

RFP NO. 16:
All articles of incorporation, operating agreements, corporate policies, and bylaws for
Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 16:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrases “operating agreements” and “corporate policies.” Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK..
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK will produce

RFP NO. 17:
All filings made by or on behalf of Stability AI, Ltd. with any governmental or regulatory
agency in the United States, including tax returns and applications for a business license.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 17:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “filings . . . with any governmental or regulatory agency” and “disclosures.” Stability

14

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, based on its investigation to
date, Stability UK responds that

RFP NO. 18:
Copies of all agreements entered into between Stability AI, Ltd. and a counterparty located
in the United States, including but not limited to employment agreements, supercomputer
contracts, commercial agreements, sales contracts, and other agreements that are required for the
day-to-day operations of the Company.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 18:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “located in the Unites States.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to
the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court
may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Stability UK further objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks third-party confidential information.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK

15

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 19:
All written materials Stability AI, Ltd. has provided to potential investors, including pitch
decks.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 19:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” written materials provided to potential investors.
RFP NO. 20:
Documents sufficient to identify the manner in which Stability AI, Ltd. solicited potential
investors, including the locations of any meetings with potential investors in the United States.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 20:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.]
RFP NO. 21:
Documents sufficient to show the identity of any and all of Your employees, officers, or
directors based in the United States and the location(s) in the United States from which they have
worked for You.

16

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 21:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK

RFP NO. 22:
To the extent not covered by the preceding request, Documents sufficient to show the
identify of any and all of Your employees, officers, or directors who have provided services to
You or performed work for You in the United States and the location(s) in the United States from
which they have done so.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 22:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on that grounds that it is duplicative of RFP
No. 21. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence
relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal
jurisdiction over Stability UK.

17

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 23:
Documents sufficient to show the location of each computer server within the United States
that is owned, leased, operated, or accessed by Stability AI, Ltd. in the day-to-day operation of its
business.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 23:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “operated,” “accessed,” and “day-to-day operation.” Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK

RFP NO. 24:
Documents sufficient to identify, by name and location, any Person within the United
States that hosts the code base for Stable Diffusion.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 24:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “hosts the code base.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that
it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of

18

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 25:
Documents sufficient to identify, by name and location, any officer, director, employee,
agent, or representative of Stability AI, Ltd. who has accessed the www.gettyimages.com website
from within the United States.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 25:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks documents and
information not within Stability UK’s possession, custody, or control. Stability UK further objects
to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 26:
All Communications sent by Stability AI, Ltd. to a Person that is located, incorporated, or
has its principal place of business in Delaware (other than Communications with its counsel of
record in relation this Action).
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 26:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

19

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 27:
All Documents that evidence or concern any travel by any officer, director, employee,
agent, or representative of Stability AI, Ltd. into or within the State of Delaware.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 27:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words and phrases “any travel” and “representative.” Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK

RFP NO. 28:
All Documents that constitute, evidence, refer, or relate to communications between
Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc. or any other corporate affiliate concerning activities in
Delaware.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 28:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “activities in Delaware.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need

20

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 29:
All Documents concerning any business activity or business transactions conducted by or
on behalf of Stability AI, Ltd. involving Persons domiciled in Delaware or assets located in
Delaware.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 29:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrases “business activity” and “business transaction.” Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 30:
Documents sufficient to show all financial accounts maintained by Stability AI, Ltd. and
the location of the institutions with which Stability AI, Ltd. has an account.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 30:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

21

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds that

SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 30
Subject to, and without waiving, its objections, Stability UK states that

RFP NO. 31:
All Documents concerning whether or the extent to which Stability AI, Ltd. has access to,
or control over, any financial accounts held in the name of Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 31:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “the extent to which Stability AI, Ltd. has access to, or control over.” Stability UK
further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
RFP NO. 32:
Documents sufficient to show all funds or assets provided by Stability AI, Inc. to Stability
AI, Ltd. and vice versa.

22

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 32:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 33:
Documents sufficient to show any and all instances in which Stability AI, Ltd. required
approval from Stability AI, Inc. in order for Stability AI, Ltd. to take action or abstain from acting,
and vice versa.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 33:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the word “approval.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 34:
Documents sufficient to show any and all instances in which Stability AI, Ltd. unilaterally
controlled or dictated the action or inaction of Stability AI, Inc., or had the sole discretion to control
or dictate the action or inaction of Stability AI, Inc., and vice versa.

23

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 34:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “approve or disapprove of any action or inaction.” Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK..
RFP NO. 35:
Documents sufficient to show whether or the extent to which Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability
AI, Inc. share or have shared physical office space, storage of records or information, operation of
payroll, coverage by an insurance plan, or other matters of business administration.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 35:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “business administration.” Stability UK further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 36:
All documents relied upon in responding to Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional Interrogatories to
Defendant Stability AI, Ltd.

24

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 36:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents or
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege or protection from discovery. Stability UK further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

Dated: July 7, 2023
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
s/ Paul M. Schoenhard
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Stability AI Ltd.

25

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
OF COUNSEL:

Nicole M. Jantzi
Paul M. Schoenhard
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
-andAmir R. Ghavi
Michael C. Keats
Nicholas D. Winkley
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
[phone]

26

EXHIBIT B
(Redacted)

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STABILITY AI, LTD. and
STABILITY AI, INC.,

C.A. No. 23-135 (GBW)

Defendants.

STABILITY AI LTD.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
Defendant Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability UK”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby
submits these Responses and Objections (the “Responses and Objections”) to Plaintiff’s
Jurisdictional Interrogatories to Defendant Stability AI Ltd. (“Interrogatories”), dated
May 11, 2023, in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, on the grounds that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it, as set
forth in Stability UK’s pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this Action (ECF No. 16). Stability
UK further objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and definition therein,
on the grounds that Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) has not pled “with reasonable
particularity” factual allegations showing that Stability UK might have the necessary contacts with

1

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
the Delaware forum to establish personal jurisdiction, making jurisdictional discovery improper.
Aldossari on Behalf of Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 F.4th 236, 259 (3d Cir. 2022) (“A plaintiff cannot
show up in court with bare allegations and force defendants to start handing over evidence. Rather,
jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when the plaintiff presents factual allegations that suggest
with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between the party and
the forum state.”) (cleaned up). Stability UK further objects to the Interrogatories as premature,
as the parties have not yet engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the discovery phase of
this action has not yet begun, and the Court has not ordered or otherwise authorized the parties to
engage in any preliminary discovery. The disclosure of any information is not a waiver of such
objections or representation that Stability UK agrees that Getty Images has sufficiently pleaded
the possible existence of the requisite contacts, that the Court may properly exercise personal
jurisdiction over it in this action, or that any jurisdictional discovery is necessary or appropriate.
Stability UK reserves the right to rescind, revise, supplement, amend, or otherwise modify these
Responses in light of any Court order regarding jurisdictional discovery or Stability UK’s pending
Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this Action.
2.

Stability UK provides these Responses only as the Interrogatories may relate to the

limited issue of personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. To the extent the Court determines it may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK and this action proceeds to the discovery
phase and Plaintiff continues to seek information in response to the Interrogatories, Stability UK
reserves its rights to amend or supplement these Responses and/or further object and respond to
the Interrogatories on additional grounds.
3.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to impose obligations greater than those allowed

2

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
under, or that are inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil
Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or any other
applicable rules or law governing the scope of discovery (the “Applicable Rules”).
4.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, duplicative, unduly
burdensome, or seek information that is not relevant to the limited issue of determining whether
the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
5.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (a)(1), to the extent Plaintiff has exceeded a total
of 25 interrogatories, taking into account all discrete subparts. To the extent the Court determines
it may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK and this action proceeds to the
merits discovery phase, Stability UK objects to any interrogatories in excess of the 25interrogatory limit, and these Interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, should be counted
against the 25-interrogatory limit.
6.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require the disclosure of information that Stability
UK is restricted from disclosing by law or by contract. Stability UK further objects to the
Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and definition therein, to the extent they seek the
production of documents and communications that contain attorney-client communications, are
protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege, contain trade secrets and
or proprietary business information, are prohibited from disclosure by the European General Data
Protection Regulation (2016/679) (the “GDPR”) or other European data privacy laws, would
impinge on privacy rights of non-parties, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under

3

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
applicable laws or rules (collectively, “Protected Information”). Any inadvertent disclosure of
Protected Information in response to an Interrogatories will not be deemed a waiver of any such
privileges or protections for that document or for the class or category of documents from which
it has been drawn. Stability UK reserves the right to obtain the return of such information and
prohibit its use in any manner.

Stability UK hereby requests the return of any Protected

Information that is inadvertently produced and reserves the right to object to the disclosure or use
of such Protected Information at any stage of the Action or any other proceedings.
7.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they purport to seek information not in Stability UK’s
possession, custody, or control, that is publicly available, or that is equally available to Plaintiff or
already in Plaintiff’s possession.
8.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they request production of “all” or “any” documents or information
when a lesser subset of documents or information would be sufficient to show the pertinent
information, or where only a lesser subset is relevant to the claims or defenses in this action, on
the grounds that such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional
to the needs of the case.
9.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require Stability UK to perform anything more than
a reasonable and diligent search for information where the information reasonably would be
expected to be found on the grounds that such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly
burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case.

4

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
10.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they inquire into matters beyond the scope of disclosure
permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
11.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they are duplicative or cumulative.
12.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the creation of new documents, reports,
spreadsheets or data compilations.
13.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they incorporate purported facts. Stability UK does not adopt
or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts so incorporated.
14.

Stability UK objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the production of electronically stored information
from sources that are not reasonably accessible or where retrieval of such material is unduly
burdensome, including but not limited to the production of electronically stored information from
legacy systems, from sources that are maintained for disaster recovery purposes, or from sources
that are not reasonably believed to contain unique non-duplicative information.
15.

No objection or limitation, or lack thereof, made in these Responses and Objections

shall be deemed (i) an admission by Stability UK as to the existence or non-existence of documents
or information requested; (ii) an admission that information or documents are within Stability
UK’s possession, custody or control; (iii) an admission that documents or information are relevant
or admissible in connection with any trial, hearing, motion, or other proceeding in this action or

5

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
any other action; or (iv) a waiver of Stability UK’s right to assert such objection or limitation at
any future time in connection with the Requests or otherwise.
16.

Stability UK expressly reserves all further objections as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privileged status, or admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, of any
information provided in response to the Interrogatories, as well as the right to object to further
discovery relating to the subject matter of any information provided, including the right to move
the Court to quash the Interrogatories or for a protective order.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
17.

Stability UK objects to the “Definitions and Instructions” insofar as they

incorporate purported facts. Stability UK does not adopt or confirm the accuracy of any purported
facts incorporated in any of the Definitions.
18.

Stability UK objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Stability AI, Inc.” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability UK understands “Stability AI, Inc.” to mean Stability AI, Inc.
19.

Stability UK objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “You,” and “Your” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability UK understands “Stability AI, Ltd.,” “You,” and “Your” to mean Stability AI
Ltd.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
The following specific objections and responses are made based on Stability UK’s
investigation to date and Stability UK’s current information and belief. Subject to its objections,

6

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
b) accessed Stable Diffusion or DreamStudio;
c) created a DreamStudio account; and
d) purchased a DreamStudio image.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks information not within Stability UK’s possession, custody, or control.
Moreover, rather than any kind of targeted approach, this Interrogatory broadly seeks a 50-state
survey.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
On a state-by-state basis, provide an accounting of the total revenue received by Stability
AI, Ltd. from Persons or accounts located in, or as a result of business activities undertaken in,
each state in the United States.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrases “accounts,” “located in,” “business activities,” and “undertaken in.”
Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence

8

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Stability UK is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in this Interrogatory, and may
supplement its response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Provide the locations for all servers located in the United States that are owned, operated,
maintained or otherwise utilized by Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the words “operated,” “maintained,” and “otherwise utilized.” Stability UK further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

Stability UK is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in this Interrogatory, and may
supplement its response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

11

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify any and all contracts Stability AI, Ltd. has entered with a Person based in the
United States, including the counterparty, the location of the counterparty, and the nature of the
agreement.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “based in the United States.” Stability UK further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

12

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦

Stability UK is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in this Interrogatory, and this
answer is subject to its further and continuing investigation. Stability may supplement its response
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Provide a detailed description of Stability AI, Ltd.’s role in the marketing and distribution
of Stable Diffusion or DreamStudio, or any related product or offering, in the United States.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,

13

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “role in the marketing and distribution.” Stability UK further objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Provide a detailed description of Stability AI, Ltd.’s role in the ownership or operation of
Stable Diffusion or DreamStudio, or any related product or offering.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “role in the ownership or operation.” Stability UK further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

14

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Provide the names and positions held for all officers and directors for Stability AI, Ltd.
since its founding.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the word “officers.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
For each officer and director identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, identify each
Person that paid or otherwise provided remuneration to each officer and director in connection
with their role as officer or director of Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect

15

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
to its use of the phrase “paid or otherwise provided remuneration.” Stability UK further objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify each person affiliated or associated with Stability AI, Ltd. (including directors,
officers, employees, financial advisors, bankers, tax advisors, attorneys, agents, or consultants)
who was involved in the formation of Stability AI, Inc. and provide a brief description of their
role.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrases “affiliated or associated with” and “involved in the formation of.” Stability
UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the
limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK. Stability UK additionally objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
information beyond Stability UK’s knowledge and not within Stability UK’s possession, custody,
or control.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify the source of and authorization for all payments made by or on behalf of Stability
AI, Ltd. in connection with the formation of Stability AI, Inc.

16

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the words and phrases “source,” “authorization,” and “in connection with the formation
of.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence
relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal
jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify each person affiliated or associated with Stability AI, Ltd. who has acted on behalf
of Stability AI, Inc. and provide a description of such acts.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrases “affiliated or associated with” and “acted on behalf of.” Stability UK
further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK. Stability UK additionally objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
information beyond Stability UK’s knowledge and not within Stability UK’s possession, custody,
or control.

17

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Subject to, and without waiving, its objections, Stability UK responds as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Provide an accounting of all dividends or payments made by Stability AI, Ltd. to Stability
AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “an accounting of.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Identify all intercompany transfers between Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,

18

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “intercompany transfers.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Identify all contractual obligations undertaken by Stability AI, Ltd. for which Stability AI,
Inc. is a guarantor.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Identify all United States-based employees for Stability AI, Ltd. since Stability AI, Ltd.
was founded, including job titles, the locations in which they were based and for how long they
were based there, and descriptions of their responsibilities, both generally and in relation to the
development, marketing, or distribution of Stable Diffusion and Dream Studio in particular.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering

19

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

20

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦

Stability UK is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in this Interrogatory, and this
answer is subject to its further and continuing investigation. Stability may supplement its response
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Identify any and all consultants or sales agents Stability AI, Ltd. has retained in the United
States.

21

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the words and phrases “consultants” and “sales agents.” Stability UK further objects
to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

Stability UK is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in this Interrogatory, and this
answer is subject to its further and continuing investigation. Stability may supplement its response
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Identify all U.S.-based suppliers to Stability AI, Ltd., including their locations, the nature
of the goods or services supplied, and the amount Stability AI, Ltd. has spent on each supplier’s
goods or services.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the word “suppliers.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds

22

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Identify each person affiliated or associated with Stability AI, Ltd. who has traveled to or
within the State of Delaware in connection with their work for either Stability AI, Inc. or Stability
AI, Ltd. and the reason for their presence in Delaware.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the word “in connection with.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Identify any and all accounts maintained by Stability AI, Ltd. (either individually or
together with any other Person) at any point in time at any Delaware financial institution, including
any bank, savings and loan associations, brokerage and/or investment firms, wherever situated,

23

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
and for each account identified, provide the date the account was opened and the current balance
as of the date of Your response or, if applicable, the date on which the account was closed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Identify any stock or other interest held by Stability AI, Ltd. in any incorporated or
unincorporated businesses, partnerships, joint venture or other entity resident in Delaware or
formed under the laws of Delaware.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

24

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability UK responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Describe the corporate function of Stability AI US Services Corporation, and the
circumstances that led to its incorporation.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Stability UK hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability UK also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “corporate function.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Stability UK additionally
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information beyond Stability UK’s
knowledge and not within Stability UK’s possession, custody, or control.

25

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦

Dated: July 7, 2023
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
s/ Paul M. Schoenhard
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Stability AI Ltd.
OF COUNSEL:

Nicole M. Jantzi
Paul M. Schoenhard
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
-andAmir R. Ghavi
Michael C. Keats
Nicholas D. Winkley
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
[phone]

26

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
VERIFICATION
I, Peter O’Donoghue, am the Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Board of
Directors of Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability UK”) and am authorized to make this Verification on
behalf of Stability UK. I have read the foregoing Supplemental Objections and Responses to
Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional Interrogatories. The Supplemental Responses were prepared by or with
the assistance of Stability UK and counsel. My understanding is that, subject to inadvertent or
undiscovered errors or omissions, these Supplemental Responses are based on records and
information currently available. Subject to the forgoing, I verify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing Supplemental Responses are true and correct based upon present information and belief.

Executed on July 7, 2023

s/ Peter O’Donoghue
Peter O’Donoghue
CFO
Stability AI Ltd.

27

EXHIBIT C
(Redacted)

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STABILITY AI, LTD. and
STABILITY AI, INC.,

C.A. No. 23-135 (GBW)

Defendants.

STABILITY AI, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S JURISDICTIONAL REQUESTS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
Defendant Stability AI, Inc. (“Stability US”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby
submits these Responses and Objections (the “Responses and Objections”) to Plaintiff’s
Jurisdictional Requests for the Production of Documents to Defendant Stability AI, Inc. (the
“Requests”), dated May 11, 2023, in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, on the grounds that Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) has not pled “with
reasonable particularity” factual allegations showing that Stability UK might have the necessary
contacts with the Delaware forum to establish personal jurisdiction, making jurisdictional
discovery improper. Aldossari on Behalf of Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 F.4th 236, 259 (3d Cir. 2022)
(“A plaintiff cannot show up in court with bare allegations and force defendants to start handing

11

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
over evidence. Rather, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when the plaintiff presents factual
allegations that suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite
contacts between the party and the forum state.”) (cleaned up). Stability US further objects to the
Requests, and to each and every instruction and definition therein, on the ground that they are
premature, as the parties have not yet engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the discovery
phase of this action has not yet begun, and the Court has not ordered or otherwise authorized the
parties to engage in any preliminary discovery. The production of any documents or information
is not a waiver of such objections or representation that Stability US agrees that Getty Images has
sufficiently pleaded the possible existence of the requisite contacts with respect to Stability UK,
that the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Stability UK in this action, or that any
jurisdictional discovery is necessary or appropriate. Stability US reserves the right to rescind,
revise, supplement, amend, or otherwise modify these Responses and Objections in light of any
Court order regarding jurisdictional discovery or Stability US’s pending Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer this Action (ECF No. 16).
2.

Stability US provides these Responses only as the Requests may relate to the

limited issue of personal jurisdiction over Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability UK”). To the extent this
action proceeds to the discovery phase and Plaintiff continues to seek documents in response to
the Requests, Stability US reserves its rights to amend or supplement these Responses and/or
further object and respond to the Requests on additional grounds.
3.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to impose obligations greater than those allowed
under, or that are inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil

2

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or any other
applicable rules or law governing the scope of discovery (the “Applicable Rules”).
4.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, duplicative, unduly
burdensome, or seek documents or information that is not relevant to the limited issue of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
5.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require the disclosure of information that Stability
US is restricted from disclosing by law or by contract. Stability US further objects to the Requests,
and to each and every instruction and definition therein, to the extent they seek the production of
documents and communications that contain attorney-client communications, are protected by the
attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege, contain trade secrets and or proprietary
business information, are prohibited from disclosure by the European General Data Protection
Regulation (2016/679) (the “GDPR”) or other European data privacy laws, would impinge on
privacy rights of non-parties, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable laws or
rules (collectively, “Protected Information”). Any inadvertent disclosure of Protected Information
in response to a Request will not be deemed a waiver of any such privileges or protections for that
document or for the class or category of documents from which it has been drawn. Stability US
reserves the right to obtain the return of such information and prohibit its use in any manner.
Stability US hereby requests the return of any Protected Information that is inadvertently produced
and reserves the right to object to the disclosure or use of such Protected Information at any stage
of the Action or any other proceedings.

3

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
6.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they purport to seek documents not in Stability US’s
possession, custody, or control, that are publicly available, or that are equally available to Plaintiff
or already in Plaintiff’s possession.
7.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they request production of “all” or “any” documents or information
when a lesser subset of documents or information would be sufficient to show the pertinent
information, or where only a lesser subset is relevant to the claims or defenses in this action, on
the grounds that such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the
needs of the case.
8.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent they purport to require Stability US to perform anything more than
a reasonable and diligent search for documents where responsive documents reasonably would be
expected to be found on the grounds that such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
proportional to the needs of the case.
9.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they inquire into matters beyond the scope of disclosure
permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
10.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they are duplicative or cumulative.
11.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the creation of new documents, reports,
spreadsheets or data compilations.

4

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
12.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they incorporate purported facts. Stability US does not adopt
or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts so incorporated.
13.

Stability US objects to the Requests, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, to the extent that they call for the production of electronically stored information
from sources that are not reasonably accessible or where retrieval of such material is unduly
burdensome, including but not limited to the production of electronically stored information from
legacy systems, from sources that are maintained for disaster recovery purposes, or from sources
that are not reasonably believed to contain unique non-duplicative information.
14.

No objection or limitation, or lack thereof, made in these Responses and Objections

shall be deemed (i) an admission by Stability US as to the existence or non-existence of documents
or information requested; (ii) an admission that documents are within Stability US’s possession,
custody or control; (iii) an admission that documents are relevant or admissible in connection with
any trial, hearing, motion, or other proceeding in this action or any other action; or (iv) a waiver
of Stability US’s right to assert such objection or limitation at any future time in connection with
the Requests or otherwise.
15.

Stability US expressly reserves all further objections as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privileged status, or admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, of any
information provided in response to the Requests, as well as the right to object to further discovery
relating to the subject matter of any information provided, including the right to move the Court
to quash the Requests or for a protective order.

5

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
16.

Stability US objects to the “Definitions” insofar as they incorporate purported facts.

Stability US does not adopt or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts incorporated in any of
the Definitions.
17.

Stability US objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Stability AI, Ltd.” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability US understands “Stability AI, Ltd.” to mean Stability AI Ltd.
18.

Stability US objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “You,” and “Your” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability US understands “Stability AI, Inc.,” “You,” and “Your” to mean Stability AI,
Inc.
OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
19.

Stability US objects to Instruction Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the extent that they

purport to seek the production of original documents and/or documents, including electronically
stored information, in a particular form or in more than one form and to the extent that they purport
to impose requirements (including the provision of details regarding documents) that are greater
than or different from those required by the Applicable Rules.

Stability US will produce

documents in a reasonable format consistent with District of Delaware practice or as otherwise
agreed upon with Plaintiff.
20.

Stability US objects to Instruction Nos. 10, 11, and 12 to the extent that they purport

to impose a duty of supplementation or purport to require the production of documents for an

6

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
extended and open-ended period of time.

Notwithstanding, Stability US reserves the right to

modify, supplement, or amend any or all of these responses and objections, if necessary or
appropriate, and to produce additional responsive, non-privileged documents, if they are located.
Any supplemental production by Stability US in response to the Requests is not an
acknowledgement of any duty of supplementation.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
RFP NO. 1:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Inc.’s corporate structure since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 1:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will produce

RFP NO. 2:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Inc.’s capital structure since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 2:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

7

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 3:
All Stability AI, Inc. shareholder meeting minutes.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 3:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” shareholder meeting minutes.
RFP NO. 4:
Invitations and agendas for all Stability AI, Inc. shareholder meetings.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 4:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “invitations” and “agendas.” Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not
attempt any level of proportionality, and broadly seeks “all” invitations and agendas for
shareholder meetings.
RFP NO. 5:
All Stability AI, Inc. board minutes and board or corporate resolutions and presentations.

8

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 5:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” board minutes and board or corporate resolutions and
presentations.
RFP NO. 6:
Documents sufficient to show Stability AI, Inc.’s management organizational structure and
any changes thereto since its founding.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 6:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “management organizational structure.” Stability US further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 7:
Documents sufficient to identify all members of the “Stability AI corporate group” as that
term is used in paragraph 13 of the May 2, 2023 Declaration of Peter O’Donaghue (D.I. 18).

9

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 7:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will produce

RFP NO. 8:
All Documents concerning the formation of Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 8:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the formation.” Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will produce

RFP NO. 9:
All Documents concerning the formation of Stability AI US Services Corporation.

10

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 9:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the formation.” Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will produce

RFP NO. 10:
All Documents concerning the corporate relationship between and among Stability AI, Inc.
and Stability AI, Ltd., including how decisions and business plans are made and sharing of
resources such as office space.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 10:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the corporate relationship.” Stability US further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

11

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 11:
All Documents concerning the corporate relationship between and among Stability AI, Inc.
and Stability AI US Services Corporation, including how decisions and business plans are made
and sharing of resources such as office space.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 11:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “concerning the corporate relationship.” Stability US further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 12:
Any indemnification agreements, guarantees, recourse documents, and/or obligations
between and/or among Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI, Ltd., including but not limited to those
related to Stable Diffusion or DreamStudio.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 12:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “recourse documents” and “obligations.” Stability US further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or

12

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 13:
Stability AI, Inc.’s monthly financial statements.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 13:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 14:
Stability AI, Inc.’s quarterly and yearly budgets.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 14:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 15:
Documents sufficient to show all of Stability AI, Inc.’s current and historical operating
expenses.

13

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 15:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 16:
All annual reports for Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 16:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 17:
All filings made by or on behalf of Stability AI, Inc. with any governmental or regulatory
agency in the United States, including tax returns, disclosures, and applications for a business
license.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 17:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “filings . . . with any governmental or regulatory agency” and “disclosures.” Stability

14

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
RFP NO. 18:
All Documents sufficient to show the circumstances that led to Stability AI, Inc.’s
corporate charter being voided, as described in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, including
all related correspondence from the office of the Delaware Secretary of State.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 18:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “filings . . . with any governmental or regulatory agency” and “disclosures.” Stability
US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
RFP NO. 19:
All Documents concerning Stability AI, Inc.’s efforts to revive its corporate charter after it
was voided, as described in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 19:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,

15

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “all document concerning . . . efforts.” Stability US objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to
the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court
may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will

RFP NO. 20:
All articles of incorporation, operating agreements, corporate policies, and bylaws for
Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 20:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrases “operating agreements” and “corporate policies.” Stability US further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US will produce

RFP NO. 21:
Documents sufficient to show all financial accounts maintained by Stability AI, Inc.

16

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 21:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 21
Subject to, and without waiving, its objections, Stability US states

RFP NO. 22:
Documents sufficient to show the extent to which Stability AI, Inc. has access to, or control
over, any bank accounts held in the name of Stability Ltd.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 22:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “the extent to which Stability AI, Inc. has access to, or control over.” Stability US
further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.

17

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 23:
Documents sufficient to show all funds or assets provided by Stability AI, Inc. to Stability
AI, Ltd. and vice versa.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 23:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence
relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal
jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 24:
Documents sufficient to show how Stability AI, Inc. has used or spent any portion of the
$75 million it raised in October 2022, as described in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 24:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words “used” and “spent.” Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it
is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of
discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 25:
All written materials Stability AI, Inc. has provided to potential investors, including pitch
decks.

18

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 25:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK. Additionally, this Request does not attempt any level of
proportionality, and broadly seeks “[a]ll” written materials provided to potential investors.
RFP NO. 26:
Documents sufficient to show the extent to which Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI, Ltd.
share or have shared physical office space, storage of records or information, operation of payroll,
coverage by an insurance plan, or other matters of business administration.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 26:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “business administration.” Stability US objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of
discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

19

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RFP NO. 27:
Documents sufficient to show all instances in which Stability AI, Inc. required approval
from Stability AI, Ltd. in order for Stability Inc. to take action or abstain from acting, and vice
versa.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 27:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the words and phrases “approval” and “take action or abstain from acting.” Stability US further
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited
purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Stability UK.
RFP NO. 28:
All Documents relating to any action taken by Stability AI, Inc., in its capacity as a
stockholder of Stability AI, Ltd., to approve or disapprove of any action or inaction taken by
Stability AI, Ltd.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 28:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect to its use of
the phrase “approve or disapprove of any action or inaction.” Stability US further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or

20

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 29:
All minutes to any meetings in which the decision was made for Stability AI, Inc. to
purchase Init ML Inc. and Init ML SAS.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 29:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is duplicative of RFP
No. 5. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence
relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal
jurisdiction over Stability UK.
RFP NO. 30:
All documents relied upon in responding to Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional Interrogatories to
Defendant Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 30:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.

21

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦

Dated: July 7, 2023
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
s/ Paul M. Schoenhard
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Stability AI, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

Nicole M. Jantzi
Paul M. Schoenhard
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
-andAmir R. Ghavi
Michael C. Keats
Nicholas D. Winkley
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
[phone]

22

EXHIBIT D
(Redacted)

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STABILITY AI, LTD. and
STABILITY AI, INC.,

C.A. No. 23-135 (GBW)

Defendants.

STABILITY AI, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S JURISDICTIONAL INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
Defendant Stability AI, Inc. (“Stability US”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby
submits these Responses and Objections (the “Responses and Objections”) to Plaintiff’s
Jurisdictional Interrogatories to Defendant Stability AI, Inc. (“Interrogatories”), dated May
11, 2023, in the above-captioned action (the “Action”) as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, on the grounds that Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) has not pled “with
reasonable particularity” factual allegations showing that Stability UK might have the necessary
contacts with the Delaware forum to establish personal jurisdiction, making jurisdictional
discovery improper. Aldossari on Behalf of Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 F.4th 236, 259 (3d Cir. 2022)
(“A plaintiff cannot show up in court with bare allegations and force defendants to start handing

1

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
over evidence. Rather, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when the plaintiff presents factual
allegations that suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite
contacts between the party and the forum state.”) (cleaned up). Stability US further objects to the
Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and instruction therein, as premature, as the parties
have not yet engaged in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the discovery phase of this action has
not yet begun, and the Court has not ordered or otherwise authorized the parties to engage in any
preliminary discovery. The disclosure of any information is not a waiver of such objection or
representation that Stability US agrees that Getty Images has sufficiently pleaded the possible
existence of the requisite contacts with respect to Stability UK, that the Court may properly
exercise jurisdiction over Stability UK in this action, or that any jurisdictional discovery is
necessary or appropriate. Stability US reserves the right to rescind, revise, supplement, amend, or
otherwise modify these Responses in light of any Court order regarding jurisdictional discovery
or Stability US’s pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this Action (ECF No. 16).
2.

Stability US provides these Responses only as the Interrogatories may relate to the

limited issue of personal jurisdiction over Stability AI Ltd. (“Stability UK”). To the extent the
Court determines it may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK and this action
proceeds to the discovery phase and Plaintiff continues to seek information in response to the
Interrogatories, Stability US reserves its rights to amend or supplement these Responses and/or
further object and respond to the Requests on additional grounds.
3.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent they purport to impose obligations greater than those allowed
under, or that are inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil
Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or any other
applicable rules or law governing the scope of discovery (the “Applicable Rules”).

2

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
4.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, duplicative, unduly
burdensome, or seek information that is not relevant to the limited issue of determining whether
the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
5.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every instruction and

definition therein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (a)(1), to the extent Plaintiff has exceeded a total
of 25 interrogatories, taking into account all discrete subparts. To the extent the Court determines
it may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK and this action proceeds to the
merits discovery phase, Stability US objects to any interrogatories in excess of the 25-interrogatory
limit, and these Interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, should be counted against the 25interrogatory limit.
6.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent they purport to require the disclosure of information that Stability
US is restricted from disclosing by law or by contract. Stability US further objects to the
Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and instruction therein, to the extent they seek the
production of documents and communications that contain attorney-client communications, are
protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege, contain trade secrets and
or proprietary business information, are prohibited from disclosure by the European General Data
Protection Regulation (2016/679) (the “GDPR”) or other European data privacy laws, would
impinge on privacy rights of non-parties, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under
applicable laws or rules (collectively, “Protected Information”). Any inadvertent disclosure of
Protected Information in response to an Interrogatories will not be deemed a waiver of any such
privileges or protections for that document or for the class or category of documents from which
it has been drawn. Stability US reserves the right to obtain the return of such information and

3

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
prohibit its use in any manner.

Stability US hereby requests the return of any Protected

Information that is inadvertently produced and reserves the right to object to the disclosure or use
of such Protected Information at any stage of the Action or any other proceedings.
7.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they purport to seek information not in Stability US’s
possession, custody, or control, that is publicly available, or that is equally available to Plaintiff or
already in Plaintiff’s possession.
8.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent they request production of “all” or “any” documents or
information when a lesser subset of documents or information would be sufficient to show the
pertinent information, or where only a lesser subset is relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action, on the grounds that such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
proportional to the needs of the case.
9.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent they purport to require Stability US to perform anything more
than a reasonable and diligent search for information where the information reasonably would be
expected to be found on the grounds that such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly
burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case.
10.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they inquire into matters beyond the scope of disclosure
permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
11.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they are duplicative or cumulative.

4

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
12.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they call for the creation of new documents, reports,
spreadsheets or data compilations.
13.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they incorporate purported facts. Stability US does not adopt
or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts so incorporated.
14.

Stability US objects to the Interrogatories, and to each and every definition and

instruction therein, to the extent that they call for the production of electronically stored
information from sources that are not reasonably accessible or where retrieval of such material is
unduly burdensome, including but not limited to the production of electronically stored
information from legacy systems, from sources that are maintained for disaster recovery purposes,
or from sources that are not reasonably believed to contain unique non-duplicative information.
15.

No objection or limitation, or lack thereof, made in these Responses and Objections

shall be deemed (i) an admission by Stability US as to the existence or non-existence of documents
or information requested; (ii) an admission that information or documents are within Stability US’s
possession, custody or control; (iii) an admission that documents or information are relevant or
admissible in connection with any trial, hearing, motion, or other proceeding in this action or any
other action; or (iv) a waiver of Stability US’s right to assert such objection or limitation at any
future time in connection with the Requests or otherwise.
16.

Stability US expressly reserves all further objections as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privileged status, or admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, of any
information provided in response to the Interrogatories, as well as the right to object to further
discovery relating to the subject matter of any information provided, including the right to move
the Court to quash the Interrogatories or for a protective order.

5

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
17.

Stability US objects to the “Definitions and Instructions” insofar as they incorporate

purported facts. Stability US does not adopt or confirm the accuracy of any purported facts
incorporated in any of the Definitions.
18.

Stability US objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Stability AI, Ltd.” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability US understands “Stability AI, Ltd.” to mean Stability AI Ltd.
19.

Stability US objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “You,” and “Your” to the extent it

imposes duties on or would require the discovery of information from Persons that are not
reasonably within the scope of discovery or subject to discovery obligations. For purposes of its
responses, Stability US understands “Stability AI, Inc.,” “You,” and “Your” to mean Stability AI,
Inc.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
The following specific objections and responses are made based on Stability US’s
investigation to date and Stability US’s current information and belief. Subject to its objections,
Stability US is continuing to investigate the matters set forth in these Interrogatories and reserves
the right to supplement and/or amend its responses if and as additional or different information
comes to light or as otherwise contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify Stability AI, Inc.’s date of incorporation, principal place of business, and each
location where Stability Inc. maintains or has maintained offices.

6

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US responds as
follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify the name and position held for each officer and director of Stability AI, Inc. at any
time since its founding.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the word “officer.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need
of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US responds as
follows:

7

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
For each officer and director identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify each
Person that paid or otherwise provided remuneration to each officer and director in connection
with their roles as officer or director of Stability AI, Inc.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “paid or otherwise provided remuneration.” Stability UK further objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to, and without waiving, its objections, Stability US responds as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify all individuals, by name, title, and employer, involved in raising capital for
Stability AI, Inc. and describe what role each individual has played.

8

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “involved in raising capital.” Stability UK further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
tailored or proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of
determining whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Describe all intercompany transfers between Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI, Ltd. since
each was founded.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “intercompany transfers.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or
proportional to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining
whether the Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all officers and directors of Init ML Inc. and Init ML SAS.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,

9

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the word “officers.” Stability US further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that the burden of identifying the requested information is substantially the same for Plaintiff as it
is for Stability US. Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional to the need of discovering
evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the Court may properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Stability UK
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Describe the corporate function of Stability AI US Services Corporation, and the
circumstances that led to its incorporation.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Stability US hereby incorporates its General Objections set forth above as though fully set
forth herein. Stability US also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and/or does not reasonably identify the information sought, specifically with respect
to its use of the phrase “corporate function.” Stability UK further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored or proportional
to the need of discovering evidence relevant to the limited purpose of determining whether the
Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Stability UK.
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, Stability US responds as
follows:

10

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
Dated: July 7, 2023
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
s/ Paul M. Schoenhard
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Stability AI, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:
Nicole M. Jantzi
Paul M. Schoenhard
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
801 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
-andAmir R. Ghavi
Michael C. Keats
Nicholas D. Winkley
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
& JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
[phone]

11

♦ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY ♦
VERIFICATION
I, Peter O’Donoghue, am a member of the Board of Directors of Stability AI, Inc.
(“Stability US”) and am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Stability US. I have
read the foregoing Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional
Interrogatories.

The Supplemental Responses were prepared by or with the assistance of

Stability US and counsel. My understanding is that, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors
or omissions, these Supplemental Responses are based on records and information currently
available.

Subject to the foregoing, I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

Supplemental Responses are true and correct based upon present information and belief.

Executed on July 7, 2023

s/ Peter O’Donoghue
Peter O’Donoghue
Director
Stability AI, Inc.

12

EXHIBIT E

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

Direct dial: 202.639.7254
Email: [e-mail]

July 6, 2023

Jared R. Friedmann
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153-0119
Re: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del.)
Dear Jared,
I write in response to your June 30, 2023 letter and July 1 email regarding Getty’s continued
requests for additional jurisdictional discovery in the above-referenced matter.
As an initial matter, and as noted in my July 1 email, the timing of your letter is
unfortunate. We met and conferred by videoconference on Monday, June 26, and Tuesday, June
27, with the latter videoconference concluding at approximately 11 AM EDT. During those
videoconferences, you expressed urgency regarding the parties’ ongoing discussions, promised
rapid follow-up by Getty and asked me to assure the same on behalf of the Stability
Defendants. We thus anticipated that we would receive a follow-up letter from you later in the
day on Tuesday, June 27. None was received. Nor did we hear from you further on Wednesday
or Thursday. Indeed, it was not until after I expressed my dismay regarding Getty’s delay by email
on June 30 that we finally received the letter to which I now respond at 2:08 PM EDT on Friday,
June 30—after 7 PM in London, where you know the Stability Defendants are located; and in the
U.S. the afternoon leading into the Fourth of July holiday weekend. Not an optimal time to send
a letter, if Getty is indeed seeking a prompt response.
Meanwhile, the Stability Defendants do not understand the tone you have assumed in your
recent communications. To be clear: the Stability Defendants maintain the view that Getty is not
entitled to jurisdictional discovery at all. But in the interests of avoiding unnecessary disputes, the
Stability Defendants have engaged with Getty nonetheless, voluntarily and in good faith. Rather
than recognize and appreciate these unnecessary efforts, Getty complains that the Stability
Defendants have not done enough and claims entitlement to information to which it is not entitled.
Significantly in this regard, the Stability Defendants are nonplussed by Getty’s cavalier
attitude toward depositions and the schedules of potential deponents and counsel. Typically, a
party seeking discovery—especially where it has no clear entitlement to do so—provides the
801 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
T: +1.202.639.7000 friedfrank.com

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

Jared R. Friedmann

July 6, 2023
Page 2

counter-party with notice of the discovery it is seeking. Here, however, Getty has not asked for a
single deposition (which is, of course, fine) but has insisted that the option to demand depositions
remains available to it (which is not fine). Mindful of the difficulties associated with scheduling
foreign depositions, especially in the midst of the summer holidays, I have repeatedly asked over
the course of many weeks whether Getty intended to request any deposition(s) as part of its
jurisdictional discovery effort. When Getty repeatedly failed to make any such request or
otherwise confirm its intentions, I went so far as to secure the availability of Peter O’Donoghue,
Defendants’ declarant, for deposition on July 13 in London—a deposition to which Getty is not
entitled, but which Defendants were prepared to offer in an effort to advance matters. In your
July 1 email, however, you refuse to confirm that deposition or even to take a position on whose
deposition(s), if any, Getty may request. Getty’s position is not well-taken.
Turning to the specific discovery requests you discuss, Stability US will supplement its
response to Interrogatory No. 3, but does not agree to provide responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4
and 5. With respect to Interrogatory No. 4, Stability US does not agree that its fundraising efforts
are relevant to any jurisdictional inquiry or are reasonably explored at this point. And with respect
to Interrogatory No. 5, Stability US does not agree that its financial transactions are relevant to
any jurisdictional inquiry. Further, your reliance on general discovery standards to claim that
Stability US is not “excuse[d]” from responding, is misplaced, as Getty does not have any
entitlement to the jurisdictional discovery it seeks. And, as counsel have discussed at length, to
the extent Getty is permitted to inquire into the Stability Defendants’ financial management at all,
the most appropriate source of such information under the circumstances would be the declarant,
Peter O’Donoghue—whose deposition the Stability Defendants have offered but Getty has not
accepted.
Stability US will supplement its response to RFP No. 21 to identify financial institutions
with which it holds accounts and will supplement its production to include its certificate of good
standing from September 2022, but does not agree to provide further responses to Getty’s RFPs.
Stability UK will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3 to provide state-by-state
revenue information to the extent it is compiled and maintained in the ordinary course of business,
and Stability UK will provide a narrative response to Interrogatory No. 12, but does not agree to
provide responses to the other interrogatories you identified. As previously explained, Stability
UK has not tracked—and does not have a reasonable means to track—downloads or accesses on a
state-by-state basis, as requested by Interrogatory No. 2. And with respect to the remaining
interrogatories, again, the Stability Defendants do not believe Getty’s effort to dive into financial
matters is necessary or appropriate, and again, the Stability Defendants offered the deposition of
Peter O’Donoghue, which Getty has not accepted.
Stability UK stands on its objections with respect to the RFPs you identify.
As a final note, the Stability Defendants are disturbed by Getty’s claimed reservation of
right to compel responses to Getty’s requests “as originally served.” For over a month, the parties

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

Jared R. Friedmann

July 6, 2023
Page 3

have discussed jurisdictional discovery, and the Stability Defendants have engaged in such
discussions and have voluntarily provided information in good faith based on those
discussions. The goal, of course, was to find a mutually-agreeable scope of jurisdictional
discovery to which the Stability Defendants would voluntarily submit and which would avoid any
need for court intervention. Getty has accepted what the Stability Defendants have offered but
also “reserves” its “right” to continue to demand more. If Getty’s plan all along was to ask the
Court for everything the Stability Defendants did not provide voluntarily, much time and effort
could have been saved.
In view of the above, upon service of its supplemental responses and production tomorrow,
the Stability Defendants will understand and expect that jurisdictional discovery is closed.
Sincerely,

Paul M. Schoenhard