| In Fat Joe Suit Against
Dixon Cases Seemed AI Now Judge
Asks Discovery Status by Nov 3
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 30 – Terrance Dixon says
he was abused by Joseph
Cartagena a/k/a Fat Joe.
But Fat Joe
sued Dixon first, for
defamation. After that,
Dixon's lawyer Tyrone
Blackburn filed his suit
against Fat Joe.
On
August 1 both cases were
addressed before U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon. Inner City
Press live tweeted, here.
The upshot
is that Judge Rochon declined
to stay discovery in Fat Joe
v. Dixon, but also declined
the request of Fat Joe and Roc
Nations that Dixon's case be
dismissed and made into a
counterclaim in Fat Joe's
suit.
Instead, Dixon's case will be
consolidated with Fat Joes,
with Dixon directed to
effectuate service of process
before an Initial Pre-Trial
Conference in that case in
October.
On September 5
Judge Rochon docketed the
schedule: "Depositions shall
be completed no later than
December 1, 2025. The case is
to be tried to a jury. Counsel
for the parties have conferred
and their best estimate of the
length of trial is 5 days.
Deposition due by 1/20/2026.
Fact Discovery due by
12/1/2025. Expert Discovery
due by 1/20/2026. Discovery
due by 1/20/2026. Case
Management Conference set for
2/17/2026 at 10:00 AM before
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
Pretrial Conference set for
2/17/2026 at 10:00 AM."
On September 8
Dixon's counsel Blackburn
wrote in asking to amend a
filing with a series of
misquoted or non existent
cases - and on September 10
Judge Rochon declined to
accept the amendment, stating
"defendants may address any
inaccuracies in their previous
brief in reply. full filing
and endorsement on Patreon here
On October 30,
Judge Rochon docketed: "ORDER
denying [78] Letter Motion for
Conference. On October 27,
2025, Plaintiff requested a
pre-motion discovery
conference to resolve a
dispute regarding Defendants'
failure to respond to his
discovery requests for over
two months. Dkt. 78.
Defendants responded to
Plaintiffs letter on October
29, 2025, claiming that the
Plaintiff's requests were
served improperly via email.
Dkt. 79. Defendants stated
that they are willing to
comply with the requests once
proper service is effectuated
and suggest that the parties
execute a written stipulation
providing for email service
for discovery. Dkt. 79 at 3-4.
Plaintiff shall inform the
Court by November 3, 2025 if
there continues to be a
discovery dispute. That said,
Defendants are advised that it
is unacceptable that they did
not respond to Plaintiff's
letter of October 15, 2025 (or
subsequent voicemail)
requesting a meet and confer
to address Plaintiff's
concerns about the lack of
response to his discovery
requests. Dkt. 78-3.
Defendants should have also
advised Plaintiff of any
issues related to service when
they received the discovery
requests in August and
September 2025. Dkts. 78-1,
78-2. Only after Plaintiff
filed its letter with the
Court on October 27, 2025 did
Defendants respond and they
provide no explanation for
their failure to respond to
Plaintiff's request to meet
and confer. Dkt. 79. This
delayed discovery and wasted
the parties' and the Court's
resources in addressing an
issue that perhaps could have
been resolved without Court
intervention if Defendants had
timely communicated with
Plaintiff. The Court expects
that this will not happen in
the future. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed
to terminate the motion at
Dkt. 78. SO ORDERED.. (Signed
by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on
10/30/2025)."
The two cases
have been consolidated under
the first filed case,
Cartagena v. Dixon, et al.,
1:25-cv-3552 (Rochan)
More on X
for Subscribers here
and Substack here
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
