Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. — Entry #19: RESPONSE re 18 Order by OAI International, Inc
Case: Neural AI, LLC v. OAI International, Inc. cand · 3:26-mc-80261
filed August 17, 2026
What this document is
Docket entry #19 · filed October 07, 2026
RESPONSE re 18 Order by OAI International, Inc.. (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 10/7/2026) (Entered: 10/07/2026)
Who is involved
- Neural AI, LLC
- OAI International, Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- CoreWeave: its name “CoreWeave, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corp., CoreWeave, Inc., Oracle Corp., Tesla Inc., Google, LLC, Meta…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 10, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
4 page(s), 11,019 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 4
Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)
Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)
DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)
Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)
WARREN LLP
2261 Market Street, No. 606
San Francisco, California, 94114
+1 (415) 895-2940
+1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent OAI International, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NEURAL AI, LLC, ) Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT
)
Petitioner, ) OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S
) RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
v. ) OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
)
OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________________)
Respondent OAI International, Inc. hereby responds to the Court’s order of September 30, 2026,
asking whether OAI International consents to transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Docket No. 18 at 2.
OAI International does not consent to transfer, for the following reasons.
First, the potential “exceptional circumstances” referenced by the Court are the result of Neural’s
litigation choices. The order noted “the complexity of the underlying action, plus the fact that all but
one of the nine motions to compel were filed in the issuing court,” as possibly “exceptional
circumstances” allowing transfer. Docket No. 18 at 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). A complex underlying
matter is not an exceptional circumstance by itself. E.g., CMB Expert, LLC v. Atteberry, No. 14-51,
2014 WL 2197840, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2014) (factors including “that the underlying action is
‘fairly complex’” are not “exceptional circumstances warranting a Rule 45(f) transfer.”); Gilbert v. Rare
Moon Media, LLC, No. 15-217, 2016 WL 141635, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2016) (“Complicated cases
are not ‘exceptional,’ and the court understands the issues here.”); Isola USA Corp. v. Taiwan Union
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
– 1 – Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 4
Tech. Corp., No. 15-94003, 2015 WL 5934760, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2015) (although “there is no
question that the District of Arizona is more familiar with the procedural and substantive aspects of the
underlying patent litigation,” that “cannot be what Congress meant when it required a finding of
exceptional circumstances, otherwise the exception would swallow the rule”), R. & R. adopted, 2015
WL 5944286 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2015). Thus, as the Court notes, any exceptional circumstances must
come from the additional fact that “all but one of the nine motions to compel were filed in the issuing
court” (Docket No. 18 at 2)—and that resulted from Neural’s litigation choices. Neural waited almost a
year to serve subpoenas, and then refused to negotiate the scope of the subpoenas it served. Opp. at 2:24
to 3:8, 4:10 to 5:9. As a result, many non-parties declined to produce documents, and Neural filed a
wave of ancillary actions at the same time. Id. at 5:11-20. If the Court finds that Neural’s motions are
“exceptional circumstances” under Rule 45(f), it will give litigants a perverse incentive to bring a
coordinated wave of discovery motions instead of resolving disputes with non-parties. “Courts should
avoid rulings creating ‘perverse incentives that discourage useful settlements and encourage protracted
litigation.’” United States v. Patrol Servs., Inc., 202 F. App’x 357, 361 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United
States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1343 (11th Cir. 2004)). Transfer would do exactly that.
Second, Neural failed to seek transfer and it is now too late. “The proponent of transferring the
motion to the issuing court bears the burden of showing ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Music Grp.
Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting W. Schwarzer et
al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 11:2290.1 (Rutter Group 2014)).
Neural did not try to show exceptional circumstances or address the burden analysis, and thus “waived
this issue.” St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1169 (D. Or. 2015).
Third, transfer would punish OAI International for doing the right thing. Neural first served
subpoenas with places of compliance in Austin, Texas. OAI International had ironclad arguments that
those places of compliance were deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), which rendered those subpoenas
invalid on their face. Docket No. 1-22 at 2. Rather than quietly preserving those arguments for an
eventual motion, OAI identified these place-of-compliance arguments in its first meet-and-confer call
with Neural, told Neural it was confident these arguments would prevail, and further told Neural it
would not raise these arguments against subpoenas specifying places of compliance in San Francisco.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
– 2 – Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 4
Id. As a result, Neural served new subpoenas, specifying a valid place of compliance. Docket No. 1-6.
Should the Court transfer this action, it would put OAI International in an objectively worse position
than if it had kept quiet: still before the Western District, but without its ironclad arguments against
invalid places of compliance. “‘The prime concern’ in deciding Rule 45(f) transfer motions ‘should be
avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing
court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions.’” Music Grp., 82 F. Supp. 3d at 984.
“Transfer is appropriate only if such interests outweigh the interests of the nonparty served with the
subpoena in obtaining local resolution of the motion.” SharkDiver Consulting Inc. v. Gemini Direct
LLC, No. 24-16, 2024 WL 2863508 at *1 (D. Ariz. June 6, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) advisory
comm.’s note to 2013 amend.) On these facts that cannot be so, and transfer would provide “perverse
incentives” not to do the right thing when meeting and conferring. Patrol Servs., 202 F. App’x at 361.
The Court also ordered the parties to “notify the Court of any relevant developments in the
related subpoena disputes.” Docket No. 18 at 2. Neural filed nine ancillary actions, including this one.
Opp. at 5:11-20. Neural has since dismissed four of these actions, leaving this one plus four others:
Non-Party Case Number Date Filed Status
Amazon.com, Inc. 7:26-mc-00241 June 24, 2026 Pending
Microsoft Corp. 7:26-mc-00242 June 24, 2026 Pending
Tesla, Inc. 7:26-mc-00318 August 17, 2026 Pending
X.AI Corp. 7:26-mc-00319 August 17, 2026 Dismissed
Meta Platforms, Inc. 7:26-mc-00322 August 18, 2026 Dismissed
CoreWeave, Inc. 7:26-mc-00323 August 18, 2026 Dismissed
Google, LLC 7:26-mc-00324 August 18, 2026 Pending
Oracle Corp. 7:26-mc-00325 August 18, 2026 Dismissed
OAI International does not have any information regarding these actions beyond their public docket
entries. Should the information in this chart change, OAI International will file an updated version.
Date: October 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 230565)
Erika H. Warren (State Bar No. 295570)
DeMarcus B. T. Williams (State Bar No. 329756)
Madeline A. Woodall (State Bar No. 351664)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
– 3 – Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER
Case 3:26-mc-80261-AGT Document 19 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 4
WARREN LLP
2261 Market Street, No. 606
San Francisco, California, 94114
+1 (415) 895-2940
+1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile
[email protected]
Attorneys for OAI International, Inc.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
– 4 – Case No. 3:26-mc-80261-AGT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER