In the United States, Lightspeed Venture Partners is seeking to quash a subpoena from Universal Music and Sony Music in the copyright litigation against AI music platform Suno. The venture firm, which backed Suno across its Series B, C, and D funding rounds, filed the motion to quash one month ago; the two music companies recently opposed it in a filing spanning nearly 30 pages.
Document and Deposition Demands#
The labels are requesting documents and communications about business risks tied to Suno’s training data, as well as the platform’s "efforts or failure to license" that data. They also identified 20 topics for deposition testimony, including:
- Training-data legal risks
- Due diligence
- Lightspeed’s professional relationships with Suno executives
- The firm’s "understanding of SUNO’s impact or effect on the music industry"
The plaintiffs have previously sought to pinpoint Suno’s "training number" and obtain a copy of its Warner Music licensing deal. The requested documents would likely touch on that agreement and related policy changes, according to the filing.
Redactions and Discovery Scope#
Lightspeed, represented by Latham & Watkins, the same firm representing Suno, argued that the testimony topics are "either already addressed by Lightspeed’s document production or" better suited for Suno itself.
The public version of Universal Music’s and Sony Music’s opposition contains redactions. Some redactions cover parts of Lightspeed’s investment thesis that the labels say demonstrate "the market harm that contradicts Suno’s fair use defense."
The core argument is that Lightspeed invested in Suno multiple times during the litigation and should produce relevant documents created after the initial discovery cutoff of June 2025. The filing also cites a magistrate judge’s earlier approval of a subpoena involving Udio investor a16z.
Related Cases#
In a separate complaint against Suno brought by artists including Tony Justice, both sides last week asked to delay a scheduling conference from late October until early December. Their motion cited "the anticipated complexity of this case" and a desire "to discuss proposals for streamlining and coordinating discovery in light of other pending cases against Suno, which should lead to more efficient and streamlined adjudication of these proceedings in the long term."
