Byrd v. OpenAI, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEPHEN BYRD,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPENAI, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-06279-CRB
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 23, 2026, alleging Defendants misappropriated
his trade secrets. Compl. (dkt. 1). Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend that complaint to
address several deficiencies. Mot. to Amend (dkt. 50). Defendants filed a joint
memorandum in opposition, claiming that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment—mainly,
Plaintiff’s clarification that the “licensing-auction recipients” Plaintiff emailed received
only public information—means Defendants did not have access to Plaintiff’s trade
secrets, rendering Plaintiff’s claims “false and utterly frivolous.” Defs.’ Joint Mem. of L.
in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. (dkt. 51) at 1 (quoting Compl. at 6).
They request that this Court instead dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Id. at 5.
Courts assess motions for leave to amend with “extreme liberality.” Bacon v.
Woodward, 104 F.4th 744, 753 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles,
754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014)). This policy is even stronger for pro se litigants. See
Reed v. Muhammed, No. 22-cv-05227-WLH-MAA, 2024 WL 4846757, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2024). To deny leave to amend for an unrepresented plaintiff, a court must be
absolutely certain that a complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured. See Akhtar v. Mesa,
698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Such deference wins out here. While the Court
Case 3:26-cv-06279-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
agrees with Defendants that one interpretation of Plaintiff’s amendments would undermine
their claims, Plaintiff’s reference to a “tiered disclosure structure” that limited access to
confidential information to only some recipients could also be interpreted as a clarification
about which communications with Defendants contained non-public information. See
Compl. at 6. “Extreme liberality” means giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt,
especially since Plaintiff’s motion comes early in the litigation process and seeks to
remedy deficiencies in the original complaint. If the amendment does in fact doom
Plaintiff’s claims, the Court is confident that the parties’ briefing will make that clear. The
Court GRANTS the motion for leave.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-06279-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2