Overview
In papers filed yesterday, music mogul Jay Z (Shawn Carter) moved by order to show cause to block a court ordered deposition. In the underlying suit, the plaintiff claims to be owed compensation for having created the logo for Jay Z’s record label, Roc-A-Fella. Jay Z argues that, despite the court having earlier ordered the deposition for this week, discovery has since confirmed that he would have no relevant knowledge, and that the deposition would be purely for harassment:
The fact that Plaintiff has marshaled no proof, other than his own self-serving testimony, of Mr. Carter's involvement with the alleged agreement concerning the Logo -- particularly his failure to produce the supposed written contract at issue -- demonstrates that Plaintiff’s goal can only be to harass Mr. Carter and disrupt his business . . . . Like many business executives placed in the precarious spot of an "apex" deponent, Mr. Carter is extremely busy given his responsibilities related to multiple business interests, not to mention his active career as a musician, performer, and producer. Having to participate in what we now know will be a demonstrably ineffective deposition -- including preparation time, appearance and transcript review -- would present a tremendous burden and inconvenience for Mr. Carter particularly because, as noted above, he has no unique personal knowledge concerning the key issues in the case . . . . A well-known person with financial success will always be prone to receiving a disproportionately large number of implausible claims compared to the average person. These private citizens -- even those in the public eye -- ought not to be subject to a litany of depositions merely because a plaintiff sees that person as an easy target. Plaintiff must show some modicum of truth to his allegations before being permitted to abuse this Court’s available tools of litigation for purposes of harassment, interference, or undeserved gain. Despite being permitted amendments and significant discovery, Plaintiff still has not done so in this matter. And, given Mr. Carter’s sworn lack of personal knowledge, Plaintiff can hardly be motivated by a search for the truth in asking questions to which Mr. Carter has already testified that he does not know the answer.
