Judge Lee concludes marathon hearing in Concord Music v. Anthropic case

The summary judgment hearing

Judge Eumi Lee recently concluded a lengthy hearing regarding the summary judgment motions filed in the Concord Music v. Anthropic lawsuit. Summary judgment is a legal move where one party asks the court to rule on the case immediately because the facts are not in dispute. This specific hearing lasted a total of 4 hours and 43 minutes.

During this marathon session, Judge Lee questioned the attorneys representing both Concord Music and Anthropic. The goal was to address the specific legal issues raised in the motions submitted by each side. The court's goal is to determine if the case can be decided now or if it must proceed to a full trial.

As chatgptiseatingtheworld.com reported, the judge peppered the legal teams with questions to clarify their positions. The attorneys for Concord Music included Matthew Oppenheim, Nick Haley, Corey Miller, Michel Gomez-Reichman, Timothy Chung, and Bret Matera. The defense team for Anthropic consisted of Sonal Mehta, Louis Tompros, Ari Holtzblatt, Robin Burrell, Jared Grubow, and Alex Miller.

The Daubert motion delay

Because the hearing on summary judgment motions was so extensive, Judge Lee decided to separate the remaining motions. The court has scheduled a specific hearing for the remaining Daubert motions for October 30, 2026. This means the legal process will not reach a final conclusion for a significant amount of time.

A Daubert motion is a request to determine whether an expert's testimony is based on reliable methodology. In complex cases involving technology and copyright, these motions are used to decide which experts are allowed to present evidence to the court. By setting this for 2026, the court is creating a long runway for the parties to prepare their technical arguments.

The upcoming Daubert hearing is scheduled to take place via Zoom at 1:00 PM in San Jose. The court has specified that this will be a videoconference-only proceeding. This format allows for remote participation while maintaining the official nature of the judicial record.

Logistics and court orders

The court has issued specific instructions regarding the next steps for the legal teams. The parties are required to meet and confer to discuss the best available dates and formats for any continued hearings. They must then inform the Court's Central Reporting Depot of their agreed-upon schedule.

By October 26, 2026, the parties are required to deliver two distinct sets of chambers copies to the court. The first set must be organized according to a proposed order for an omnibus sealing motion. This motion involves keeping certain documents private or hidden from the public record.

The second set of documents must be organized according to the indices filed at ECF No. 910. The court is also requiring updated ECF numbers to identify the re-filed versions of documents filed under seal. These updates must reflect the final sealing requests made by the parties involved in the litigation.

Rules for remote proceedings

The court has established strict rules for those who wish to attend the 2026 Zoom hearing. Advanced notice is required for any counsel or parties who plan to be present during the videoconference. A list of names and emails must be submitted to the court by October 28, 2026, at 5:00 PM.

The judge has also issued a clear warning regarding the behavior of those granted access to the proceedings. Because the hearing is held via telephone or videoconference, the court has prohibited any form of recording. This includes taking photographs, recording the audio, or rebroadcasting any part of the hearing.

The court also prohibits the use of screenshots or other visual copying of the hearing. These rules are designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the privacy of the participants. The court will strictly enforce these prohibitions on all remote attendees.

What to expect next

The legal teams now have a significant amount of time to prepare for the 2026 hearing. They will likely spend the next year refining their expert testimonies and preparing the documents for the sealing motions. This period allows for deep technical analysis of the AI models and the music in question.

The outcome of the Daubert motions will be critical for the case. If the court allows certain experts to testify, it could significantly influence how the court views the relationship between AI training and copyright. If the motions are denied, it could limit the evidence available to one side.

For the public and the music industry, this case remains a slow-moving but high-stakes battle. The court's decisions on sealing and expert testimony will set the stage for how the litigation proceeds in the coming years. The parties must now navigate the administrative requirements set by Judge Lee to keep the case moving forward.