OpenAI: A Hunch Does Not Justify Jurisdictional Discovery

II. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Any Injury-in-Fact to Establish Article III Standing

3. Plaintiffs’ hunch that their code has been output does not justify jurisdictional discovery.

In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to any jurisdictional discovery to cure their standing defects. (Opp. at 10.)

While courts have discretion to grant or deny discovery, discovery is inappropriate where the request for discovery is "based on little more than a hunch that might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts," or "when it is clear that further discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction." Gomez v. Elite Lab. Servs. Weeklys, Ltd., No. 20-CV-01805-JST, 2021 WL 4992625, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021)).

"Absent some evidence establishing a colorable basis for jurisdiction," a court must deny a plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery. Sharma v. Volkswagen AG, 524 F. Supp. 3d 891, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs cannot meet these minimal standards.

The Opposition does not provide any "colorable basis" or arguments beyond a mere "hunch" that such discovery would establish standing for Does 3 and 4. Any request for jurisdictional discovery must be denied.