## Facts

- Ronald, Rudolph, and O’Kelly Isley (the “Isley Brothers”) were pop singers and recording artists who had been under contract with Motown Record Corporation (“Motown”) for several years.
- Under the Motown arrangement, Motown owned the master recordings from sessions done during the relationship, and Motown’s wholly owned publishing subsidiary, Jobete Music Co., Inc. (“Jobete”), held copyrights in compositions covered by the arrangement.
- By 1968 the Isleys were not doing well commercially with Motown.
- In December 1968, the Isleys applied for and obtained a release from their Motown contract.
- After leaving Motown, the Isleys used two wholly owned companies—Triple Three (sheet music) and T‑Neck (records)—to publish and press their hit single, “It’s Your Thing.”
- Buddah Records, Inc. served as an independent distributor for the T‑Neck release.
- “It’s Your Thing” became a major commercial success, selling roughly 1.75 million copies.
- Both Jobete and T‑Neck filed copyright applications for “It’s Your Thing,” creating a dispute over ownership and income.
- The key fact question at trial was when “It’s Your Thing” was first recorded: the Isleys claimed the first recording was in January 1969 (after the release), while Motown claimed it was first recorded in November 1968 (while the Isleys were still Motown artists).
- Motown presented substantial documentary and testimonial proof pointing to a November 1968 recording session, including evidence of the session and payment.
- In pretrial depositions, each of the Isley brothers testified, in substance, that a November 1968 recording session occurred, that Motown paid them for the session, and that a tape of the session existed.
- At trial, the Isleys changed their account, testifying that they were desperate for money and fabricated a story to Motown about doing a session to obtain an advance; that no music composed by them was performed at that session; and that the tape from the session was discarded about a month later.
- The three brothers also contradicted each other at trial on material matters in which all three participated.
- The case was tried to a jury using special interrogatories; one interrogatory asked whether “It’s Your Thing” was recorded for the first time in 1969 and not before the Motown release, and the jury answered in the Isleys’ favor.
- Motown moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court should grant a new trial under Rule 59 because the jury’s special-interrogatory finding on the first recording date was against the weight of the evidence and would work a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether a verdict can stand when it depends solely on plaintiffs’ trial testimony that repudiated their earlier sworn depositions, conflicted among co-plaintiffs, and faced substantial documentary and testimonial proof to the contrary.

## Decision

- The court granted Motown’s Rule 59 motion.
- The court set aside the jury’s verdict (including the finding that “It’s Your Thing” was first recorded in 1969).
- The court ordered a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a district court may order a new trial when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and allowing it to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.
- In deciding a Rule 59 motion, a trial judge may weigh the evidence and consider witness credibility; the judge is not limited to viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner.
- A verdict is vulnerable on a Rule 59 motion when it rests solely on testimony that (a) materially contradicts the witness’s earlier sworn testimony, (b) is inconsistent on key points among multiple witnesses offered by the same side, and (c) is opposed by substantial documentary and testimonial evidence.

## Conclusion

The Southern District of New York (Owen, J.) set aside the Isley Brothers’ jury verdict and ordered a new trial because the verdict depended entirely on the brothers’ trial testimony repudiating their own prior sworn depositions and conflicting with each other, while Motown offered substantial documentary and testimonial proof supporting an earlier (November 1968) recording date that, if credited, would place ownership with Motown and Jobete.


Isley v. Motown Record Corp., 69 F.R.D. 12 (1975)