SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 26 – In
one of the many cases against artificial intelligence
firms for copyright violations, Dow Jones sued Perplexity
AI in 2024. On March 20, 2026 U.S. District Court Judge
Katherine Polk Failla held a conference on discovery
disputes, specifically motions to compel. Inner City Press
live-tweeted,
below
On August 20 in another SDNY case against Perplexity, by Encyclopedia Britannica, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave held a discovery conference, which Inner City Press also live tweeted, here:
Judge
Cave: Let's refer to some terms by synonyms, if it's
designated confidential. I thought the issue was the
scraping-
Britannica lawyer: It's to measure the value. If they
targeted Britannica, that would go to wilfullness
Britannica
lawyer:
Because Perplexity advertises itself as trustworthy, it
elevates Britannica content and it goes to damages.
Judge Cave: You've looked in the source code and you
don't see the trustworthiness code?
Britannica lawyer: We have seen- I'll be careful
Judge:
Keep it general.
Britannica lawyer: OK, at a high level. What we have
seen is associated with snapshots of running the code.
But it's not in their discovery production. That's what
we're asking for. We've been trying to meet and
confer
Judge:
Keep it general.
Britannica lawyer: OK, at a high level. What we have
seen is associated with snapshots of running the code.
But it's not in their discovery production. That's what
we're asking for. We've been trying to meet and
confer
Britannica:
We
need the underlying files to test the source code.
Perplexity's lawyer Cory Daniel Struble: We say
Britannica is trying to assert a monopoly over
information. Trustworthiness is not going to carry the
day. They didn't show us any deficiency
Perplexity's
lawyer:
It appears they are trying to shift the burden onto
Perplexity. But all they have is a presentation, an
evaluation with blanks. We have done the work on our
side: we have no responsive materials over than the
code
Correx
1: OTHER than the code]
Judge: What if they point you to the lines of the code
that have led to their believe?
Perplexity's lawyer: We would welcome that.
Judge: Ms. Brook, can you do that?
Britannica's lawyer Davida Brook: Of course
Britannica's
lawyer:
We can give them the Slack messages we have, and our
expert's opinion.
Judge: What about the click-through data?
Britannica's lawyer: We reached an agreement this
morning on that, data by September 3
Perplexity's Struble: We see it differently
Britannica's
lawyer:
There is something Perplexity is using we didn't use -
Discord, we got that from the Dow Jones docket. We
should have known about it long ago. We don't like late
breaking-
Judge: Mr. Struble?
Struble: It's public that Perplexity uses Discord
Perplexity's
Struble:
They are seeking personal communications, we don't
believe we need to produce them.
Judge: What about historical versions of source code?
Britannica's lawyer: We tried to agree to a particular
format. But they gave us a different one
Britannica's
lawyer:
In our case they haven't even given the code to us in
the format they gave it in the Dow Jones case. They tell
us it's our own burden. We want them to go back to what
we agreed to.
Judge: They cites the JSONO format before Judge
Failla
Britannica's
lawyer:
That decision was standard not native. Here we have
agreed to native.
Perplexity's Struble: The court in Dow Jones resolved
this in our favor. They are raising a red herring. We
gave them a GitHub API, that's all there is.
Judge
Cave: I am going to require Perplexity to produce
declarations to Britannica, Judge Failla's docket 129
and the background. If you can't resolve it, I'll make a
ruling in due course.
More on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
This
case is Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. et al v.
Perplexity AI, Inc., 1:25-cv-7546 (Rochon / Cave)
From March 20:
Dow Jones' lawyer from Jenner & Block,
Gianni Servodidio: We have tried to narrow our request, to
not make them search for documents we don't need. We
asked, Did you decide to use the web scraper to get behind
paywalls?
Judge Failla: You're thinking that they
could put in as a search term, "Web scrapers"? Dow Jones
lawyer: They would want to know if the web scraper could
provide snippets for their answer engine. We know they
thought about this, how much context could they get?
Dow Jones lawyer: We want them to search
for "full text" and "paywall" and "web scraper." But they
have refused. This information is relevant to our case.
We've cited the AP case on fair use. Their konwingly
circumvention of paywalls is relevant to this.
Dow Jones lawyer: This defendant has a
history of this. And we're not talking about a huge number
of scrapers. Judge Failla: How many? Dow Jones lawyer: 20.
Next, does Perplexity optimized itself to be a substitute
for our client. They used to say, skip the links
Dow Jones lawyer: "Skip the links" takes us
out of the equation and prevents us from monetizing our
content. So we asked for documents on the performance of
their product. They responded, We will not search for or
compile those documents. See our footnote 3...
Now Perplexity's lawyer Andy Schapiro of
Quin Emanuel: Now it seems the plaintiffs are willing to
limit their request to what crawlers we actually use. RFP
Number 4 says, for each third party web scraper used. If
now we're being asked to search for robots.txt
Judge Failla: Mr. Servodidio, I would not
have allowed you to go on for 25 minutes if I'd known you
agreed to what Perplexity is offering. Perplexity / Quinn
Emanuel: We've produced our code, our policy on robots dot
txt - Perplexity is a search engine with ai
Judge: So I consider that resolved. What
about the second prong? Perplexity / Quinn Emanuel: They
wanted testing on if paywall content makes a different,
and the results. As we've told them, we already gave them
some documents, on ranking signals.
Judge Failla: I am denying this part of Dow
Jones' request. Mr. Servodidio, the moment you started
talking about more meet and confers, I see it as a
burden. I deny plaintiff's motion to compel. Now,
defendant's motion. Perplexity: They used burner accounts
Perplexity's Quinn Emanuel: They tried to
induce infringement. It's like a secret shopper prior to
litigation. Judge Failla: You are suggesting
entrapment of Perplexity QE: Yes. They asked, retype the
first paragraph and Perplexity said No, I can't.
Judge Failla: I am denying defendant
Perplexity's motion to compel. I have firm views on
attorney client privilege - the submission of the prompts
was not a waiver of the work product privilege.
Judge Failla: Friends, I believe that were
the issues presented to me. I am terminating the motions
at 100 and 102. I'm not interested in extending the
deadlines.
Adjourned
On May 1 Judge Failla set the pre-trial
conference - for December 14, 2026: "Pretrial Conference
set for 12/14/2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 618, 40 Centre
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Katherine Polk
Failla."
On July 9 Judge Failla ruled on (and
against) a Quinn Emanuel letter for Perplexity: "MEMO
ENDORSEMENT on re: [144] Response in Opposition to Motion,
filed by Perplexity AI, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: The Court has
reviewed (i) Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to
search the personal email accounts of founders Denis
Yarats and Johnny Ho (the "Founders") and to produce all
responsive, nonprivileged documents (Dkt. #140), as well
as (ii) Defendant's above response (Dkt. #143-144).
Plaintiffs' request is GRANTED. Defendant states that it
only did not undertake the requested searches in the past
because the Founders represented that they did not use
their personal email accounts for relevant Perplexity
business. (Dkt. #143). Defendant also appears to recognize
that the Founders did, in fact, use their personal email
accounts for business, thus negative their reason to avoid
performing the search. (Id.). And yet, Defendant still
opposes Plaintiffs' request, stating that "Plaintiffs have
presented no compelling justification for invading the
privacy of [the Founders]." (Id.). Not so. Given the
evidence that the Founders did use their personal email
accounts for company business, and given the Founders'
apparent difficulty remembering this fact, the Court
determines that Plaintiffs have easily satisfied the
standard to require production of the Founders' personal
email accounts. See, e.g., CA, Inc. v. AppDynamics, Inc.,
No. 13 Civ. 2111 (WFK) (SIL), 2014 WL 12860591, at *4
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2014). Defendant shall search the
personal email accounts of the Founders from January 2022
(or the date of their first involvement with the business)
through February 2026, and produce all responsive
non-privileged documents on or before July 15, 2026." -
full letter and order on Patreon here
More on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
The case
is Dow Jones & Company, Inc. et al v. Perplexity AI,
Inc., 1:24-cv-7984 (Failla)
