The Robin Thicke Deposition: A Masterclass in What Not to Do

The infamous Robin Thicke deposition is a prime example of how not to handle a high-stakes legal proceeding. For attorneys, depositions are a crucial tool for gathering testimony and uncovering the truth. But when a witness fumbles—whether due to arrogance, lack of preparation, or outright dishonesty—the results can be disastrous.

Thicke’s 2014 deposition in the Blurred Lines copyright infringement case, which pitted him and Pharrell Williams against the estate of Marvin Gaye, became a cautionary tale. What should have been a straightforward legal proceeding turned into a case study in self-sabotage.

Watch the Robin Thicke Deposition

If you've never seen footage of the infamous deposition, watch the video below:

Now, let’s break down the key takeaways from the Robin Thicke deposition and what attorneys can learn from it.

Witness Preparation is Non-Negotiable

Thicke’s biggest mistake? Walking into the deposition unprepared and with no coherent legal strategy. When questioned about the songwriting process, Thicke shockingly admitted that he was too intoxicated to remember contributing to Blurred Lines—despite previously claiming significant involvement. His admission that he had been abusing alcohol and Vicodin during the songwriting phase completely undermined his credibility.

Attorney Takeaway:

Ensure your client understands the stakes of a deposition. Conduct multiple prep sessions, go over expected questions, and stress the importance of consistency. A prepared witness is a credible witness.

The “I Don’t Recall” Defense Can Backfire

While it’s legally acceptable for a witness to state they don’t recall something, overusing this response—especially when it contradicts prior statements—raises red flags. Thicke repeatedly stated that he couldn’t remember details about the song’s creation, which only fueled the plaintiff’s case that he was not a reliable source of information.

Attorney Takeaway:

If a client truly doesn’t remember something, they should say so. However, excessive reliance on this response, especially when public statements suggest otherwise, can severely damage credibility. Encourage clients to be truthful while avoiding avoidable contradictions.

Demeanor Matters

Depositions are not just about the words spoken; they are also about body language, tone, and demeanor. Throughout the deposition, Thicke came across as dismissive and arrogant, which did not help his case. His flippant attitude and lack of seriousness made it easy for the opposing counsel to poke holes in his credibility.

Attorney Takeaway:

Remind clients that their demeanor in a deposition can impact the case’s outcome. They should remain composed, respectful, and serious about the proceedings. An uncooperative or combative witness can inadvertently strengthen the opposing side’s arguments.

Public Statements Can and Will Be Used Against You

Before the lawsuit, Thicke had publicly taken credit for the song’s composition, claiming that he had a major role in its creation. But under oath, he backtracked, blaming previous statements on media hype and personal issues. This stark contradiction weakened his position and gave the plaintiffs the upper hand.

Attorney Takeaway:

Always remind clients that anything they say publicly—whether in interviews, social media, or other forums—can be used against them in a deposition. If they have made inconsistent statements, it’s better to address them head-on rather than pretend they don’t exist.

Depositions Are a Marathon, Not a Sprint

Thicke’s responses reflected impatience and a lack of endurance for the deposition process. He seemed frustrated and eager to wrap things up quickly. However, depositions require careful pacing and strategic thinking to ensure a witness’s responses do not inadvertently harm their case.

Attorney Takeaway:

Train clients to approach depositions with patience. A deposition is not a casual conversation; it is a legal proceeding that requires thoughtful, deliberate responses. Rushing through answers or growing visibly frustrated can lead to costly mistakes.

Wrapping Up

The Robin Thicke deposition remains one of the most notorious moments in recent legal history, serving as a reminder that poor deposition performance can significantly impact a case’s outcome. For attorneys, it’s a textbook example of what happens when a witness enters a deposition unprepared. The next time you’re prepping a client, consider using Thicke’s testimony as a cautionary tale—because no one wants their deposition to go viral for all the wrong reasons.

Like this post? Check our our post on celebrity depositions gone wrong.

Robin Thicke Deposition FAQs

What was the Blurred Lines lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleged that Blurred Lines infringed on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit Got to Give It Up. The Gaye estate argued that Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied the song’s feel and groove without permission.

Did Robin Thicke admit to plagiarism?

No, but his deposition statements weakened his defense. He distanced himself from the songwriting process, contradicting earlier claims of involvement, which hurt his credibility.

What was the outcome of the case?

In 2015, a jury ruled in favor of the Gaye estate, awarding them $7.4 million (later reduced to $5.3 million). The case set a controversial legal precedent for copyright infringement in music.

What can attorneys learn from the Robin Thicke deposition?

Attorneys can use this case as an example of why thorough deposition preparation is essential. Key lessons include ensuring witness consistency, managing public statements, maintaining composure, and understanding that depositions are strategic legal events—not casual interviews.

‍