Jury gets the case in Beats headphones lawsuit

After closing arguments in a $109 million lawsuit over Beats headphones, it’s now the jury’s turn to sound off.

Susman Godfrey LLP partner Brian Melton and Morrison & Foerster LLP partner Arturo Gonzalez, who, respectively, represent plaintiff Steven Lamar and defendants Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young, revisited the themes of their opening statements in their Friday closings.

As they had in opening statements, Gonzalez told jurors to listen closely; Melton told them to drown out the noise.

Melton said the jury should essentially ignore arguments in the case that didn’t come down to the evidence. The best he said the defense could manage were recollections by Iovine and Young — who is better known as Dr. Dre — that minimize Lamar’s role in the early days of Beats.

While Iovine claimed in deposition that the only time he recalled meeting Lamar was in Las Vegas when Lamar had requested a photo with him, Melton said email correspondence from around 2006 shows Iovine regarded Lamar as a serious member of the project.

While Iovine, Young, and other Beats officials have claimed time and again that all parties understood the 2007 agreement was a “one-shot deal,” Melton said Lamar never agreed to that. If he had, Melton asked, why wouldn’t Beats specify it was a one-product arrangement in the contract?

Gonzalez, on the other hand, invited jurors to take a look at the big picture, pointing to testimony and evidence presented throughout the trial suggesting even Lamar understood the agreement was a one-shot deal.

A 2006 email exchange, in which Lamar vows to “take the royalty and kick [Beats’] booty on the next product,” suggests he was aware of the limits of the agreement, Gonzalez said.

While Lamar and his attorneys have maintained alterations made to headphone lines beyond the “Studio” product for which he was paid were not significant enough to justify denying his royalty, Gonzalez noted that the “Solo” pair of headphones alone was the product of 1,500 hours of design work.

Gonzalez also said Lamar hadn’t hired a designer to testify as an expert witness. If he tried to find one, Gonzalez said, it’s unlikely he’d find one who would be willing to downplay the vast differences in design between the original “Studio” and future lines.

Saying that evidence certainly isn’t good for Lamar, Gonzalez noted it’s also largely beside the point, given the contract specifically precludes Lamar from bringing a legal claim against Beats. Iovine, tired of dealing with Lamar, sought to include the language in order to “surgically remove” Lamar from the project.

As Melton had, Gonzalez closed by expressing his gratitude for the jury’s time and efforts. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David S. Cunningham III noted Gonzalez had gone over his time by about nine minutes. The judge tacked an additional nine minutes onto Susman Godfrey partner Steve Morrissey’s rebuttal in response.

Morrissey requested the PowerPoint questions Gonzalez ended his presentation with remain up, addressing each point over the course of his rebuttal. Lamar didn’t bring a designer to testify because the jury didn’t need a designer to tell them what words like “embody” meant, he said.

Morrissey also said the contract did block Lamar from suing Beats, but he noted an exception which appears to exclude breach of contract claims like the one in this case.

While he complimented Gonzalez as “one of the best litigators in the country,” Morrissey noted Iovine’s absence as evidence of his apathy toward the case.

“He couldn’t even be bothered to be here,” Morrissey said, though Gonzalez noted previously Iovine hoped to be there but was unable to attend.

The jury deliberated for about an hour before dismissing for the day. Deliberations are expected to pick up on Monday at 9 a.m.

Gil Peles, an attorney at Tauler Smith LLP not involved in the case, noted that the ambiguity of the contract was exactly why an appeals court sent the lawsuit back to a jury in the first place.

Obscure plaintiffs challenging well-known and well-liked celebrities like Young and Iovine often face an uphill battle, Peles said. But the duo’s supposedly sophisticated business partnership could be a point against them, Peles added, given the apparent blindspot included in the contract.

“One would think [Young’s] highly paid attorneys would have made that abundantly clear in the contract language,” Peles explained. “This circumstance will not be lost on a jury.”