Apple's motion to quash a Suno deposition subpoena in the UMG v. Suno AI music case is transferred to Massachusetts

What was filed

Apple Inc. filed its motion on October 13, 2026, opening miscellaneous case No. 26-mc-80303 in the Northern District of California, now No. 5:26-mc-80303 in the San Jose Division. The clerk flagged the filing as made under the wrong docket event, and Apple filed the same motion again on October 20, 2026 as Dkt. 5. The caption reads In the Matter of a Deposition Subpoena Served in: UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC and Sony Music Entertainment v. Suno, Inc., and John Does 1-10, naming the parties to the underlying case in the District of Massachusetts. Apple describes itself as a non-party to that case. The motion asks the court to quash the deposition subpoena under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45 or, in the alternative, to issue a protective order under Rule 26(c) preventing the deposition. (Dkt. 1; Dkt. 5 at i to ii, 1 to 3, 16 to 17.)

The case was first assigned to a magistrate judge who recused on October 21, 2026, and it was then assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi the same day. On October 22, 2026, the court set the motion for hearing on December 1, 2026, a setting that preceded the transfer. (Dkt. 7 to 10.)

The subpoena and the four disputed topics

According to Apple's motion, Suno served the subpoena on Apple on September 30, 2026, seeking the deposition of an Apple corporate representative, and the subpoena is identical except for its date to one Suno served on July 31, 2026 that noticed a deposition on nine topics. The motion says Suno agreed on September 29, 2026 that a supplemental declaration from Apple would resolve Suno's document subpoena and five of the nine topics (Topics 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9), and that Apple served that supplemental declaration on October 13, 2026. The subpoena itself, filed as an exhibit to the motion, is not available. (Dkt. 5 at i, 1, 7 to 9.)

As the motion describes them, four topics, as modified during the parties' conferrals, remain in dispute (Dkt. 5 at 9):

• Topic 2: current or ongoing negotiations with the plaintiffs regarding music licensing, royalties, and artificial intelligence initiatives.
• Topic 4: the ability to operate and long-term commercial viability of Apple Music and service offerings without the catalog of one or more plaintiffs, including but not limited to any studies, analyses, projections, discussions, or communications regarding the potential or actual effect on revenues, user base, user engagement, or competitive position that would result, or has resulted, from going dark, taking down, or otherwise losing access to all or a material portion of one or more plaintiffs' catalogs, or any large catalog of sound recordings licensed by Apple.
• Topic 5: the types and frequency of streaming fraud on Apple Music, how Apple typically discovers it, Apple's understanding of its typical causes, and Apple's standard policies for responding to it.
• Topic 7: communications with the plaintiffs regarding Suno or the case, with the plaintiffs' agents, such as their trade organization, in scope.

Apple's motion

Apple's motion says its only connection to the case is that Apple Music is one of several digital service providers where the labels' music and Suno-generated music can be played, and that it understands the parties seek information from it for expert analysis of the fourth fair use factor and, for Suno, to support Suno's copyright misuse defense. It says that for more than a year it has responded to six subpoenas from the plaintiffs and Suno, exchanged more than 90 emails and held more than 10 conferrals, and produced track-level and aggregate data on Apple Music tracks and two sworn declarations from an Apple senior director on its AI detection technology, its Transparency Tags program and the prevalence of Suno-generated content on Apple Music. Apple did not attach those declarations to the motion, citing their highly confidential designation. (Dkt. 5 at 1 to 2, 4 to 6, 5 n.3, 9 n.5.)

The motion makes three main arguments. First, it argues the four topics are irrelevant and disproportionate to the claims and defenses: it says the operative complaint does not reference streaming fraud and Suno is not accused of it, that Apple's licensing negotiations with the plaintiffs long predate Suno, and that copyright misuse turns on the plaintiffs' conduct, so Apple's internal assessments of their catalogs have no bearing on it. Second, it argues the information is available from the plaintiffs: it says they sit on the other side of every negotiation and communication within Topics 2 and 7, and that the information Topics 4 and 5 seek is also with the plaintiffs. Third, it argues the topics call for highly confidential commercial information and trade secrets, so Suno must show a substantial need, which the motion says Suno cannot do, and it says a protective order in a case involving Apple's licensing counterparties and competitors does not guarantee the information will be safeguarded. (Dkt. 5 at 2 to 3, 9 to 17.)

Suno's opposition

Suno filed its opposition on October 27, 2026, and asks the court to deny the motion and order Apple to produce a designee to testify on Topics 2, 4, 5 and 7, as narrowed, within fourteen days, subject to designation under the protective order in the underlying case. Suno argues the topics are directly relevant to the plaintiffs' theory of market harm, which it describes as an allegation that Suno outputs on streaming services such as Apple Music divert listeners, erode the plaintiffs' market share and dilute royalty pools, and to Suno's fair use and copyright misuse defenses. It says the plaintiffs' first amended complaint names Apple Music as a service onto which Suno users upload outputs, and that its misuse defense rests on a contention that the plaintiffs use the "must have" status of their catalogs to extract restrictions on non-infringing AI-generated content from streaming services. (Dkt. 12 at 1 to 5, 12 to 18, 24.)

Suno also argues that the testimony is not available from the plaintiffs, whose witnesses, it says, testified they lack insight into Apple's knowledge and business positions; that Apple offered no evidence of the time, cost or effort of preparing a witness; and that the underlying protective order, which extends to non-parties and includes an outside-counsel-only tier, answers Apple's confidentiality concerns. It says it narrowed the dispute by accepting a declaration on five topics, offering to exclude past and signed agreements from Topic 2, and agreeing that the technical details of Apple's detection and security methods are outside Topic 5. (Dkt. 12 at 1 to 2, 9 to 10, 19 to 23.)

On transfer, Suno's opposition says fact discovery in the underlying case closes on November 20, 2026, expert disclosures are due on January 28, 2027, and dispositive motions are due in June 2027, and it argues that transfer is not appropriate and that the Northern District of California should resolve the dispute. Apple's motion had described the underlying schedule differently, saying fact discovery not implicated by the plaintiffs' DMCA claims closed on September 30, 2026 and the deadline for third-party depositions was October 30, 2026. (Dkt. 12 at 24; Dkt. 5 at 4.)

Portions of the opposition were filed in redacted form. Suno filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed (Dkt. 11), and the plaintiffs filed a response in support of sealing their confidential discovery material (Dkt. 17).

Apple's reply

Apple filed a publicly redacted reply on November 3, 2026, with an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed (Dkt. 15). The reply argues that the Massachusetts court, at a March 2026 status conference in the underlying case, denied Suno's request for discovery into post-complaint, unexecuted AI licensing agreements that Suno said were relevant to copyright misuse, in a ruling later memorialized in an order, and it quotes the court's reference to the need for a "containment barrier around the oil spill that is discovery in this case." Apple argues the same limit should apply to non-party discovery. (Dkt. 16 at 1 to 2, 4 to 5.)

The reply repeats that the topics are irrelevant, available from the plaintiffs, and commercially sensitive, and argues that the underlying protective order cannot ensure the information stays protected at trial or later in the case. If the court concludes some testimony is warranted, Apple asks in the alternative for a protective order requiring that all testimony be designated Highly Confidential, Outside Counsel Only under the protective order and not be disclosed to any party representative or other third party. On transfer, the reply says Apple is not currently aware of exceptional circumstances under Rule 45(f), but that Apple would consent to transfer of the matter to the District of Massachusetts. (Dkt. 16 at 12 to 15.)

The transfer order

On November 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi transferred Apple's motion and the miscellaneous action to the District of Massachusetts under Rule 45(f), "for decision by the issuing court" in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., and directed the clerk to close the file. The order notes that Suno opposes the motion and asks the Northern District of California to resolve the dispute, and that Apple consents to transfer. It relies on Apple's consent as a non-party subject to the subpoena, and also finds exceptional circumstances warranting transfer: it cites the November 20, 2026 close of fact discovery in the underlying action, the presiding judge's "superior familiarity with the issues involved in the action," and the risk of unnecessary duplication and inconsistent decisions with determinations of similar disputes in the District of Massachusetts. (Dkt. 18 at 1 to 2.)

The order also finds good cause to provisionally seal the materials identified in the administrative motions to seal (Dkt. 11 and 15), which it says shall remain sealed pending final resolution by the presiding judge in the District of Massachusetts. (Dkt. 18 at 2 to 3.)

In Massachusetts

The transferred case was opened in the District of Massachusetts on November 6, 2026 as No. 1:26-mc-91602 (Dkt. 19). The same day, an electronic notice assigned the case to District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV (Dkt. 20). That notice is the latest entry on the Massachusetts docket.