Apple Doubles Down on Its Motion to Quash Suno’s Deposition Subpoena: ‘The Time Has Come to Set a Limit on the Reasonable Scope of Third-Party Discovery Here’

Picture Credit: Laurenz Heymann

Another day, another subpoena-clash advancement: Apple is as soon as again pressing back versus Suno’s need for info about its licensing conversations,”anti-AI offer terms,” and more.

Apple doubled down on its subpoena opposition in a detail-oriented filing the other day, after at first transferring to quash in mid-October. DMN’s been tracking the courtroom fight– among several sub-disputes in the non-Warner majors’Suno claims– from the beginning.

Simply to summarize, Suno is looking for a deposition covering, amongst other subjects, Apple Music’s licensing talks with Universal Music and Sony Music; the “long-lasting industrial practicality of Apple Music” without the pertinent majors’ brochures; and interactions in between Apple, the complainants, and the RIAA about the copyright case.

As lots of currently understand from our unique reporting, the ask isn’t sitting best with Apple, which on October 13th transferred to quash the subpoena. And now, with Suno’s retort going back to last month’s end, Apple has actually sent a strongly worded reply.

Undoubtedly, numerous of the angles therein will sound familiar to those who’ve been following the legal fight: “Suno is looking for overbroad discovery” from a range of celebrations, and Apple, having actually reacted to 6 overall subpoenas incorporating “more than 90 e-mails and more than 10 spoken conferrals” from both sides throughout the previous year, thinks that a difficult limitation is for that reason in order.

“After more than a year of cooperation, Apple respectfully recommends that the time has actually pertained to set a limitation on the affordable scope of third-party discovery here,” the business summarized.

Not stopping there, the non-party likewise tried to refute Suno’s primary arguments, preserving initially that Apple Music’s continuous Universal Music and Sony Music licensing discussions, whether encompassing “an anti-dilution plan” for the royalty swimming pool or not, are “unimportant.”

“Testimony about whether an anti-dilution plan is being gone over would include absolutely nothing however speculation about an offer that does not exist,” Apple composed, continuing to minimize the significance of any prospective AI-related licensing settlements.

And on the copyright-misuse front– describing the accusation that the complainant majors are taking advantage of their high-value brochures to acquire anti-AI concessions from DSPs– it’s the complainants’ conduct, not the reaction of Apple, that’s essential, according to the filing.

“Because copyright abuse switches on Complainants’ conduct, Apple’s internal view of the worth of Complainants’ brochures shows absolutely nothing about whether Plaintiffs poorly utilized their brochures,” the text checks out.

Echoing arguments that we’ve seen in various subpoena face-offs, Apple stressed the looked for information’ schedule in other places as well as the possible business damages associated with turning over the details.

“Those damages are specifically severe here since Suno would have Apple divulge its bargaining positions to the really counterparty throughout the table in such settlements,” Apple vented.

“While the protective order might provide some defense throughout discovery, it can not guarantee that the details remains safeguarded at trial or later on in the event, where Apple, as a non-party, will have little insight into or control over its usage.”

Now, all eyes are on the court’s judgment– though a concrete advancement does not seem impending. With Apple unopposed to the relocation, the administering magistrate judge today moved the quash movement to Massachusetts, where the primary UMG v. Suno claims are unfolding.