Discovery Dispute Lingers in “Stairway to Heaven” Copyright Infringement Case

May 12, 2016

copyright-infringementWith a jury trial scheduled to begin in just over a month, Led Zeppelin, their music publisher and record label continue to feud with the estate of a founding member of the rock band Spirit over the allowance of expert depositions in a copyright infringement case surrounding the song “Stairway to Heaven.”

What lesson can music professionals glean from the Led Zeppelin team’s (expensive) legal battle?

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

In May 2014, the trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust commenced a federal copyright infringement action against the living members of iconic rock band Led Zeppelin and related record companies and music publishers (collectively, “Defendants”).

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants “lifted” their 1971 mega-hit “Stairway to Heaven” from Wolfe’s song “Taurus,” which the band Spirit released in 1968.  The Trust notes that Led Zeppelin once opened for Spirit on tour and covered Spirit songs at concerts.  The case is scheduled for trial this month in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR).

Depositions and Discovery Cut-Off

The Court determined last month that four reports from the Trust’s music experts were inadmissible as originally submitted and required that they be refiled.  When the Defendants contacted the Trust’s attorneys last month regarding deposing the music experts as to the four new reports that the Court allowed the Trust to submit, the Trust’s counsel took the position that no expert depositions could be taken after the Court-ordered discovery cut-off date of February 11, 2016.

This Monday, the Defendants asked the Court to order the Trust to produce its music experts next week for deposition.  The Defendants point to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which states that expert depositions cannot be taken until after expert reports are provided.  The Trust’s attorneys continue to oppose allowing additional expert depositions.

Protect Yourself

Today’s music industry revolves around the exploitation, registration and enforcement of copyrights and other intellectual property.  As the above-mentioned case demonstrates, music publishers, record labels and musicians accused of copyright infringement are at risk of incurring substantial liability – up to $150,000 per work infringed.  As such, music publishers, record labels, music producers and musicians should speak with an experienced intellectual property and entertainment lawyer as early in the creative process as possible in order to minimize the risk of unexpected third-party copyright infringement claims.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, or if you have been served with legal process related to copyright infringement, please e-mail us at or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Related Blog Posts:

Jury Finds Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke Guilty of Copyright Infringement

Lil Wayne Files $51 Million Music Contract Lawsuit Against Label

New York Court Rules Against Sirius XM: Liable for Use of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings


David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Trending Topics

TCPA vicarious tcpa law woman holding cellphone telemarketing laws

TCPA Vicarious Liability

An Illinois federal district court judge recently held that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) may be vicariously liable for alleged Telephone Consumer

Read More »