Apple Renews Challenge to Suno Deposition Subpoena

Apple has renewed its objection to Suno’s deposition subpoena, and the motion has been transferred to Massachusetts.
Apple Music and Suno are involved in a dispute over a deposition subpoena. Apple Music and Suno are involved in a dispute over a deposition subpoena.

Apple has renewed its challenge to a deposition subpoena from Suno, arguing that the requested testimony is too broad and has little bearing on the music companies’ copyright case. The motion has been transferred to Massachusetts, where the main Universal Music Group v. Suno lawsuits are proceeding.

What Suno is seeking

Suno wants to question Apple about Apple Music‘s licensing discussions with Universal Music and Sony Music, the service’s long-term commercial viability without their catalogs, and communications among Apple, the plaintiffs and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) about the case.

Apple moved to quash the subpoena on October 13. Suno responded late last month, and Apple filed its reply yesterday.

Apple’s objections

Apple says Suno is seeking overly broad discovery from multiple parties. Over the past year, Apple says it has responded to six subpoenas involving more than 90 emails and more than 10 verbal discussions with the two sides.

Apple argues that its ongoing licensing talks with Universal Music and Sony Music are irrelevant, including any discussion of an arrangement intended to prevent dilution of the royalty pool. It says testimony on a possible arrangement would be speculative because no such deal exists, and it disputes the relevance of potential licensing talks related to artificial intelligence.

Suno’s copyright-misuse allegation concerns whether the plaintiff music companies used their catalogs to obtain restrictions on artificial intelligence from digital service providers. Apple argues that the plaintiffs’ conduct, rather than Apple’s assessment of their catalogs, is what matters to that claim.

Apple also says the information Suno seeks is available elsewhere and that disclosure could harm its commercial interests. It argues that a protective order may not keep the information confidential if it is used at trial or later in the case, when Apple would have limited control over it as a non-party.

Apple did not oppose transferring its motion to Massachusetts. The presiding magistrate judge ordered the transfer today.

Previous Post
Canada Gives Master Owners Four Years to Claim Radio Royalties. Performers Get Six.

Keep a Royalty Claims Ledger Alongside the Distribution Account

Next Post
Qobuz and Warp Records are partnering to feature the label’s catalog across Qobuz’s platforms.

A Catalogue Feature Has More Than One Conversion Path