Judge Slams Key OpenAI Witness in Copyright Infringement Case

Magistrate Judge Ona Wang orders corporate representative to undergo additional deposition after finding 'hazy recollections' on plagiarism efforts.

Apr. 9, 2026 at 3:53pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A highly detailed 3D illustration of a glowing, futuristic-looking AI server rack or data center infrastructure, bathed in neon cyan and magenta lights, conceptually representing the complex technological systems behind AI language models.As AI companies face increasing legal scrutiny over their use of copyrighted content, the complex technological systems powering language models come into focus.Chicago Today

A Manhattan judge has ordered a corporate representative for OpenAI to undergo a second deposition after finding he failed to answer 'even the simplest questions' the first time around about the company's efforts to limit chatbots from stealing writers' copyrighted work. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang said OpenAI's purported expert on plagiarism, John Vincent 'Vinnie' Monaco, was woefully underprepared for his initial January deposition.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles between AI companies like OpenAI and media organizations over the use of copyrighted content in training language models. The news outlets allege OpenAI is stealing and distorting their work, while OpenAI claims it is developing ways to limit its models from inadvertently regurgitating copyrighted material.

The details

In a sharply-worded order, Judge Wang said Monaco, who OpenAI claimed had more knowledge than any of its engineers about Project Giraffe (an internal effort to limit copyright infringement), displayed no special knowledge and based his testimony on 'hazy recollections.' The judge said Monaco failed to answer even basic questions and that OpenAI's attorney had 'impeded and frustrated' the deposition by objecting at least 200 times. The news organizations allege OpenAI has been 'covering up its infringement' by adding filters to ChatGPT, while OpenAI denies it can search all user responses for training data.

  • On January 27 and 28, Monaco was deposed by the news organizations.
  • On February 2026, the news organizations filed a motion to compel additional testimony from Monaco.
  • On April 9, 2026, Judge Wang ordered Monaco to undergo a second deposition.

The players

Ona Wang

A Manhattan Magistrate Judge overseeing the copyright infringement case against OpenAI.

John Vincent 'Vinnie' Monaco

OpenAI's purported expert on plagiarism, who was found to be woefully underprepared for his deposition.

OpenAI

An artificial intelligence company being sued by news organizations for allegedly stealing and distorting their copyrighted works.

Chicago Tribune

One of the news organizations suing OpenAI for copyright infringement.

New York Times

One of the news organizations suing OpenAI for copyright infringement.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Mr. Monaco based his testimony — which should bind the corporation — on his own hazy recollections working on Project Giraffe, a review of source code that he and others wrote (but which he does not remember), and a few other documents.”

— Ona Wang, Magistrate Judge

“He spoke to no other individuals to prepare for his deposition. But when asked even the simplest questions relevant to Plaintiffs' output claims, Mr. Monaco failed to answer or provided incomplete or evasive answers.”

— Ona Wang, Magistrate Judge

What’s next

Judge Wang deferred ruling on a request for sanctions against OpenAI, saying it would depend on how Monaco fares in his second deposition. She indicated she may issue fines or recommend some of his answers be deemed as admissions.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles between AI companies and media organizations over the use of copyrighted content in training language models. It also raises questions about the preparedness and transparency of AI companies when it comes to addressing concerns about plagiarism and copyright infringement.