GPT-4o: The judge in the case raised significant concerns about the plaintiffs' legal team, specifically their lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

Question 1 of 2 for ChatGPT-4o: Please read the article “Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team” and tell me what the judge’s key concerns are and whether you feel they are justified.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The judge in the case raised significant concerns about the plaintiffs' legal team, specifically their lack of diligence in moving the case forward. Judge Chhabria expressed frustration that the case, which was filed 11 months prior, had not made substantial progress. He criticized the lead attorney, Joseph Saveri, stating that the team had failed to litigate the case adequately. The judge emphasized that class certification would not be granted unless the plaintiffs replaced their current legal team with one that could handle the complexity of the case. The judge even suggested bringing in a firm like Susman Godfrey, which has a reputation for handling complex matters. Additionally, the judge was unimpressed with the team’s handling of discovery and alleged that they were not prepared to address Meta’s defenses properly, particularly around the issue of fair use.

As for whether these concerns are justified, the judge's frustration seems to stem from the case's slow progress and perceived mismanagement of procedural aspects like discovery. The fact that the judge suggested changing legal representation indicates a deep loss of confidence in the current team’s ability to handle the matter effectively, which is a critical issue in a class action lawsuit. If the plaintiffs' legal team has indeed struggled with essential litigation tasks, the judge’s concerns appear warranted, particularly in a high-stakes and complex case involving cutting-edge issues like AI and copyright law​(Judge Blasts Authors' L…).

Question 2 of 2 for ChatGPT-4o: List the actions that Saveri should have taken instead.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
To address the judge's concerns and move the case forward effectively, Joseph Saveri should have taken several key actions, which would have strengthened his position and ensured the lawsuit progressed more efficiently. These actions include:

1. More Timely Discovery Management:

   • Saveri should have been more proactive and timely in managing the discovery process. This includes submitting document requests earlier and following up consistently to avoid delays.

   • Ensuring that all documents were produced and reviewed well before discovery deadlines would have prevented the last-minute issues that arose, such as illegible files and translation needs.

2. Filing for Extensions More Clearly and Timely:

   • Saveri should have filed clear and timely requests for discovery extensions, detailing specific justifications for the delays and what additional documents or depositions were needed. This would have demonstrated that the delays were out of the plaintiffs' control rather than due to their own lack of diligence.

3. Avoiding Discovery Disputes:

   • By maintaining clearer communication and cooperation with Meta’s legal team, Saveri could have minimized disputes over the discovery process. Proactively addressing any issues (e.g., the technical problems with documents) instead of waiting until the last minute to raise complaints would have been more effective.

4. Addressing Discovery Delays Strategically:

   • Instead of blaming Meta for delays in document production, Saveri should have implemented a clear strategy to mitigate any obstacles (such as the 1,000 documents in French that needed translation). He could have immediately requested more time to handle these issues, avoiding perceptions of gamesmanship or unpreparedness.

5. Providing Clear and Accurate Updates to the Court:

   • Saveri should have provided the court with regular, accurate updates on the progress of discovery, including realistic timelines for resolving outstanding issues. This would have reassured the judge that the plaintiffs were working diligently and in good faith.

6. More Thorough Case Management:

   • More robust case management overall was required. This could have included bringing in more specialized or experienced co-counsel earlier in the process, especially given the complexity of AI and copyright law.

   • Implementing a stronger organizational structure with additional legal resources would have likely prevented the judge’s concerns about the team's capability to handle such a significant class action case.

7. Avoiding Inaccurate Statements:

   • Saveri should have avoided making any statements that could be perceived as misleading or inaccurate, particularly regarding when documents were received from Meta. Being fully transparent about discovery timelines would have reduced friction with both the court and the opposing counsel.

8. Focusing on Adequacy of Representation:

   • To meet the requirements for class certification, Saveri should have ensured that his team demonstrated adequate representation by showing preparedness, diligence, and the ability to litigate the complex issues involved in this case. Bringing in additional legal firepower, as suggested by the judge, could have strengthened the plaintiffs’ representation much earlier in the case.

These steps would have likely mitigated the judge's frustration and advanced the case in a timely and professional manner​.