UMG Recordings, after losing to defendant’s motion to compel, is asking Judge Hellerstein to clarify if his order means it must produce the actual “deposit copies” with the Library of Congress or, instead, copies of those deposit copies with a declaration they are the same as what was deposited.
UMG Recordings pointed to the proposed solution of the same request by Suno in a different lawsuit: “The parties discussed the discovery disputes outlined in Docket No. 70 and Docket No. 71 . Docket No. 70 concerns two categories of documents: (1) agreements for works made for hire, and (2) deposit copies. As to the first category, following representations made by Plaintiffs, the parties indicated that they believe they will be able to reach an agreement, such that a Court order is unnecessary. As to the second category of documents, the Court indicated that the goal should be to give both parties, to the extent possible, equal access to the relevant deposit copies held by the Library of Congress. The parties are to submit to the Court, by no later than April 25, 2025, a proposed order (joint or otherwise) to accomplish that goal. Turning to Docket No. 71, the parties confirmed that they have continued to meet and confer and that they believe they are close to reaching an agreement. The parties indicated that a ruling from the Court is unnecessary at the time, such that the Court may deny Docket No. 71 as moot. The parties are to contact the Court if they are unable to reach a resolution.”