A deposition subpoena for C.C. Gong, a former Menlo Ventures employee, has been approved in the major labels’ copyright case against Suno. Universal Music and Sony Music sought the testimony after Menlo disclosed that Gong had left the firm.
The dispute over the Menlo subpoena led to a motion to compel in mid-October. It is the latest in a series of document and testimony demands in the case against Suno, in which Warner is not among the plaintiffs.
What the labels want from Menlo
Suno investor Lightspeed Venture Partners is also resisting a subpoena. From Menlo, the labels are seeking information on:
- Due diligence
- Menlo’s relationship with Suno, and in particular CEO Mikey Shulman
- Analyses of “actual or potential legal exposure” on the copyright side
- Other related material
The move follows a run of subpoenas, including a growing trend of seeking information from non-parties.
The timeline around Gong
According to the labels, Menlo “did not deny” in late September and early October that Gong was an employee, when the parties corresponded about the sought testimony.
On October 12th, Universal and Sony say, “Menlo’s counsel informed” them “for the first time that Ms. Gong had left Menlo at the end of September.” The newly approved deposition subpoena followed.
Suno did not oppose the subpoena. It asked the plaintiffs to include a statement in their filing noting that Menlo and Gong could file a motion to quash.
“Suno therefore defers to the Court as to whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue their subpoena to Ms. Gong, which followed Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Menlo Ventures by 53 days, and was served 12 days after the deadline for the close of fact discovery not implicated by Plaintiffs’ § 1201 claim.
“Suno takes no position on the subpoena’s propriety and does not intend to limit any objection Ms. Gong or Menlo Ventures may raise, including by motion to quash.”
The post at issue
A public post from a top investor discussed switching listening habits to Suno. It reads in part:
“I’ve personally shifted most of my listening to Suno. I was so tired of Spotify giving me the same overplayed recommendations. When everyone can create, the catalog becomes infinite and music becomes more personalized. Instead of competing for mainstream hits, AI unlocks an ever-expanding long tail, meaning everyone can find their song, not just a song.”
Several users responded about whether the post could factor into the suits against Suno. The company has offered a fair use defense from the outset and has tried to rebut the claim that its outputs harm the market for human-made music.
Suno and Udio seek DistroKid AI-detection data
Suno and Udio are countering the royalty-dilution and market-replacement claims. They have filed a motion to compel production of DSP (digital service provider) play-volume data from the Mechanical Licensing Collective.
They are seeking “monthly aggregate counts of the recordings DistroKid delivered, tested with its AI-detection tool, and scored as likely AI generated, together with their streams and royalties.” They also want “the tool’s name and vendor, when DistroKid adopted it, whether it attributes recordings to a particular AI service, and what DistroKid knows about its accuracy.”
According to the plaintiffs, the distributor “refuses to produce a single document about the AI-detection tool, resting on objections that recast the underlying action as exclusively implicating how Suno trained its generative AI models, without regard to Suno’s fair use defense and the related market impact analysis.”
