Extract from HaystackID’s article “AI Copyright Cases Spotlight Key Discovery Practice Issues”
Federal courts have frequently emphasized the importance of reasonable limits in the discovery process. From the Chief Justice of the United States to district and magistrate judges across the country, the judiciary has embraced the need to keep discovery within manageable bounds. This generally means that discovery—while ostensibly broad—does not exceed the constraints of reasonableness under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). In today’s litigation environment, where even small cases can involve large volumes of ESI, courts are increasingly prepared to circumscribe discovery requests to more readily ensure that they do not result in undue burdens or unreasonable delays. As the Honorable Jeffrey Cole frequently observed during his approximately 20 years on the bench: “All good things, including discovery, must come to an end.”
This maxim is particularly appropriate given the direction from recent case law involving copyright infringement claims over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. In an order from the In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigationmatter, along with a decision from Onan v. Databricks, Inc., courts have restricted parties from taking additional depositions or seeking document discovery near or after the close of discovery. Google Generative AI and Onan represent a broader trend demonstrating that courts will allow parties to seek discoverable information as long as it is done within the bounds of the litigation schedule. These cases additionally spotlight key discovery practice issues, such as the need for early custodian identification, expedited data analysis using the latest discovery search technologies, and proactive follow-up with litigation adversaries to obtain requested discovery.
