Wang, Ona T., United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff,
- against -
OPENAI INC., et al.,
Defendants
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
- against -
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants
Counsel
Anna Josefine Freymann, Rachel Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, CeCe Cole, Scott Jonathan Sholder, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, New York, NY, Charlotte Lepic, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY, Wesley Dozier, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nashville, TN, Amber Magee, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX, Ian R. Bensberg, Reilly Todd Stoler, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jordan Connors, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, Rohit Nath, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs in 23-cv-8292.Allison Levine Stillman, Herman Heng Yue, Michael A. David, Rachel Renee Blitzer, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, Emily Claire Wood, Eric Nikolaides, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, Andrew Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel Jr., Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joseph C. Gratz, Andrew L. Perito, Tiffany Cheung, Vera Ranieri, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert A. Van Nest, Andrew S. Bruns, Andrew Dawson, Christopher S. Sun, Edward A. Bayley, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, R. James Slaughter, Thomas Edward Gorman, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Sarang Damle, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Carolyn M. Homer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Allyson R. Bennett, Rose Lee, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John R. Lanham, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants OpenAI Inc., OpenAI LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund I LP, OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC in 23-cv-8292.
Allison Levine Stillman, Herman Heng Yue, Rachel Renee Blitzer, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, Emily Claire Wood, Eric Nikolaides, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, Andrew Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel Jr., Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joseph C. Gratz, Andrew L. Perito, Tiffany Cheung, Vera Ranieri, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert A. Van Nest, Andrew S. Bruns, Andrew Dawson, Christopher S. Sun, Edward A. Bayley, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, R. James Slaughter, Thomas Edward Gorman, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Sarang Damle, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Carolyn M. Homer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Allyson R. Bennett, Rose Lee, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John R. Lanham, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants OpenAI GP LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC in 23-cv-8292.
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Christopher Cariello, Marc Shapiro, Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, Annette Louise Hurst, Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brianna Silverstein, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Washington, DC, Carrie A. Beyer, Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Chicago, IL, Elizabeth Mead Cavert Scheibel, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Jared Barrett Briant, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Denver, CO, Sheryl Koval Garko, Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Microsoft Corporation in 23-cv-8292.
Alexander Frawley, Eudokia Spanos, Tamar Lusztig, Zachary B. Savage, Elisha Brandis Barron, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, Karen A. Chesley, New York, NY, Davida Brook, Ellie Rae Dupler, Emily K. Cronin, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Genevieve Vose Wallace, Ian B. Crosby, Katherine Marie Peaslee, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Jennifer Maisel, Kristen Logan, Steven M. Lieberman, Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington, DC, Scarlett Collings, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff in 23-cv-11195.
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Christopher Cariello, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, Annette Louise Hurst, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, Paven Malhotra, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brianna Silverstein, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Washington, DC, Carrie A. Beyer, Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Chicago, IL, Elizabeth Mead Cavert Scheibel, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Jared Barrett Briant, Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Denver, CO, Laura Brooks Najemy, Sheryl Koval Garko, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Microsoft Corporation in 23-cv-11195.
Allison Levine Stillman, Herman Heng Yue, Michael A. David, Rachel Renee Blitzer, Luke Budiardjo, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, Emily Claire Wood, Eric Nikolaides, Jocelyn Edith Greer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, Andrew Gass, Joseph Richard Wetzel Jr., Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joseph C. Gratz, Andrew L. Perito, Vera Ranieri, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert A. Van Nest, Andrew S. Bruns, Andrew Dawson, Christopher S. Sun, Edward A. Bayley, Katie Lynn Joyce, Michelle S. Ybarra, Nicholas S Goldberg, Paven Malhotra, R. James Slaughter, Sarah Salomon, Thomas Edward Gorman, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Elana Nightingale Dawson, Sarang Damle, Carolyn M. Homer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Allyson R. Bennett, Rose Lee, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LP, OpenAI GP, LLC, OpenAI LLC, OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Global LLC, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC in 23-cv-11195.
OPINION & ORDER
The Court is in receipt of ECF 230 and 243 in Case No. 23-cv-8292 (the “Authors Cases”) and ECF 309, 329, and 331 in Case No. 23-cv-11195 (the “Newspaper Cases”), in which the parties raise similar disputes regarding the production of certain text messages and social media messages of Defendants’ custodians.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs in the Authors Cases filed a motion to compel OpenAI to produce text messages and direct messages sent on X.com belonging to certain employees who used their personal phones and X.com accounts for work purposes. (ECF 230). On October 28, 2024, OpenAI filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that: (1) OpenAI had asked the three employees (one of whom no longer works at OpenAI) to cooperate by providing their text messages; and (2) that messages sent on X.com accounts are irrelevant; and (3) in any event, messages sent on X.com are not within OpenAI’s control because California Labor Code § 980 “prohibits OpenAI from even asking its employees for access to their social media accounts. (ECF 243).
Plaintiffs in the Newspaper Cases filed a similar motion to compel OpenAI and Microsoft to produce text messages and social media messages from all custodians, including messages sent on Slack between OpenAI and Microsoft employees. (ECF 309). OpenAI and Microsoft filed separate letters in opposition on November 21, 2024, (ECF 329, 331), in which OpenAI argues (1) it has already committed to producing non-privileged, responsive text messages in their possession, custody, or control in the format requested by Plaintiffs; and (2) they cannot ask employees for access to their social media accounts under California Labor Code § 980, (ECF 329), and Microsoft argues (1) it has already agreed to produce text messages in a “usable format for plaintiffs” and (2) the Slack messages between the Defendants are already being produced by OpenAI and seeking such discovery from Microsoft as well is duplicative and provides no benefit. (ECF 331).
Per the parties’ joint charts summarizing all disputes filed on November 22, 2024, (Case No. 23-cv-8292, ECF 280; Case No. 23-cv-11195, ECF 346), (1) Defendants have agreed to produce responsive text messages for the relevant employees/custodians; (2) OpenAI refuses to produce X.com and social media messages, relying on California Labor Code § 980; and (3) Microsoft refuses to produce Slack messages between its employees and OpenAI on the basis that OpenAI has better access to such messages and is already in the process of collecting and producing these messages. This Opinion and Order addresses only the arguments concerning California Labor Code § 980. The remaining issues and arguments (if any) relate to Slack messages and will be addressed at the next conference.[1]
II. ANALYSIS
OpenAI argues that it cannot produce direct messages sent on X.com by its employees and custodians because California Labor Code § 980 “prohibits OpenAI from asking its employees for access to their social media accounts,” and thus, OpenAI does not have possession, custody, or control over these messages. (ECF 243).
§ 980 reads, in relevant part:
(b) An employer shall not require or request an employee or applicant for employment to do any of the following:
(1) disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media.
(2) Access personal social media in the presence of the employer.
(3) Divulge any personal social media, except as provided in subdivision (c).
(c) Nothing in this section shall affect an employer’s existing rights and obligations to request an employee to divulge personal social media reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or employee violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided that the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding.
Cal. Labor Code § 980. No cases have addressed the question of whether § 980 prohibits an employer from producing, as part of discovery in federal court, messages related to their work that were sent by an employee from their social media account.
The purpose of § 980 is to prevent employers from asking for and maintaining continued access to employees’ personal social media accounts (i.e., by turning over their usernames and passwords) as a condition of employment.[2] Nothing in the statute suggests that OpenAI cannot ask for, collect, and produce in discovery messages sent by their employees for work purposes just because those messages were sent via social media—to hold otherwise would allow California companies to permanently hide otherwise discoverable messages from litigation by sending them on so-called “personal” social media accounts, and would stymie federal litigation. Much in the same way that storing work-related messages and documents on an employee’s personal device under a Bring-Your-Own-Device (“BYOD”) policy does not preclude an employer from asking for such work-related documents,3 § 980 does not prevent an employer from asking, as part of discovery in federal litigation, an employee to produce workrelated messages sent on a social media account.
Accordingly, because § 980 does not prohibit employers from producing relevant, work-related messages from social media accounts, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel direct messages from X.com in both cases are GRANTED.