| In Fat Joe Suit Against
Dixon Cases Seemed AI Blackburn
Says No Now Cites Illegal
Recording
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Jan 9 – 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 January 7
Judge Rochon held a conference
on AI and discovery disputes,
asked Blackburn if unlike in
New Jersey he is continuing -
and gave the parties two days
to confer, before January 9.
On January 9,
Blackburn filed a complaint:
"FIRST LETTER addressed to
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon from
Tyrone Blackburn, Esq. dated
1/9/2026 re: emergency
application seeking immediate
Court intervention based on
the discovery that Plaintiffs
Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
is materially based on secret
and illegal recordings of
confidential
attorney-to-attorney
settlement discussions, made
in violation of Floridas
criminal wiretapping statute,
Fla. Stat. § 934.03, and
subject to Floridas absolute
exclusionary rule, Fla. Stat.
§ 934.06." Filing on Patreon here
Watch this site.
More on Jan 7 on
X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
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 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
