UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
NEW
YORK
----------------------------------X
JACK
URBONT,
Plaintiff,
-
against
-
SONY
MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT
d/b/a
EPIC
RECORDS, DENNIS
COLES
p/k/a
GHOSTFACE
KILLAH,
and
RAZOR
SHARP
RECORDS, LLC,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
NAOMI
REICE
BUCHWALD
UNITED ST TES DISTRICT
JUDGE
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED DOC :
------------------
DATE
FILED:
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
11
Civ.
4516
NRB)
Plaintiff
Jack
Urbont
moves
for
sanctions
against
defendant
Dennis
Coles
p/k/
a
Ghost
face
Killah
( Coles )
as
a
result
of
Coles's
failure
to
participate
in
discovery.
For
the
reasons
stated
below,
we
grant
Urbont's
motion
and
order
that
Coles
pay
Urbont's
expenses
in
the
sum
of
$3,758.58
and
that
a
default
judgment
be
entered
against
Coles.
BACKGROUND
On
June
30,
2011,
Urbont
filed suit
against
Coles
and
defendants
Sony
Music
Entertainment
d/b/a
Epic
Records
and
Razor Sharp
Records,
LLC,
alleging
infringement
of
his
rights
to
the
musical composition
and sound
recording of
the
Iron
Man
Theme.
Urbont
v.
Sony
Music
Entm't,
11
Civ.
4516
NRB,
2012
W
1592519,
at
1
(S.D.N.Y.
May
4,
2012).
After
filing
an
amended
complaint
on August 29,
2011,
Urbont
had
difficulty
serving
Coles
despite
the
1
Case 1:11-cv-04516-NRB Document 53 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 11
11 06 2014
 
diligent
efforts
of
a
process
server
and
private investigator,
ultimately
serving
Coles
through
Coles's
business
manager,
Michael Caruso.
Id.
As
a
result,
on
March
28,
2012,
Coles
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
for
insufficient
process,
which
we
denied
on
May
4,
2012.
Id.
Noting
that
Coles
had
indisputably
been
served with the
original
complaint,
we
found
that
Urbont had
demonstrated
due
diligence
in
attempting
to
serve
Coles
via
the
traditional
means
and
that
there
did
not
seem
any
viable
avenue
for
completing
traditional
service.
Id.
We
consequently
permitted
Urbont
to
serve
Coles
by
publication notice,
and
Coles
answered
the
amended
complaint
on
March
22,
2013
(dkt.
nos.
27, 29,
28).
n
July
10,
2013,
we
issued
a
scheduling
order
setting
discovery
deadlines
for
the
litigation
(dkt.
no.
39).
This
case
management
plan
directed
that
fact
discovery
should
be
completed
by
February
14,
2014,
with
depositions
taken
by
February
2014
and
initial
document
requests
and
interrogatories
served
by
July
2013.
Shortly
before
the
expected
close
of discovery,
on
January
17,
2014,
Coles's
counsel
requested
permission
to
withdraw
on
the
ground
that
Coles
had
ceased paying
his
attorney's
fees
and had
refused
to
communicate
with
him
about
discovery
despite
repeated
requests
(dkt. nos.
42-44)
.
Urbont
and
Sony
did
not
oppose
the
withdrawal,
but
asked
that
Coles
be
instructed
to obtain
new
counsel
within
thirty
days so
as not
to
unduly
delay discovery
dkt
.
no
. 4 6) .
n
February
6,
2
014,
we
permit
ted counsel's
2
Case 1:11-cv-04516-NRB Document 53 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 11
 
withdrawal
and
extended
the
discovery
period
for
ninety
days,
during
which
time
Coles
would
have
thirty
days
to
select
new
counsel with
no
action
taken
against
him
(dkt.
no.
47).
Unless
and
until
he
retained
counsel,
Coles
was
to
be
reached
at
his
manager's
email
address.
On May
6,
2014,
we
received
a
letter
from
Urbont
detailing
Coles's
failure
to
participate
in
discovery.
Among
other
allegations,
Urbont
asserted that
Coles
had
failed
to
appear
for
a
deposition
on
April
30,
2014
and had
not
produced
a
single
document
since
July
19,
2013.
Consequently,
on
May
12,
2014,
we
sent
Coles
a
letter
instructing
him
to
participate
in
discovery
and
warning
him
that
[f]ailure
to
do
so
may
result
in
sanctions,
which
can
be
as
severe
as
a
default
judgment
(dkt.
no.
48).
Specifically,
we
ordered
Coles
to
answer
plaintiff's
request for
production
of
documents and
interrogatories
within
thirty
days
and
to
appear
for
a
deposition within
forty
days,
and
we
gave
Urbont
leave
to
file
a
motion
for sanctions
if
Coles
failed
to
do
so.
On
August 19,
2014,
Urbont
moved
for
sanctions
against
Coles.
In
his
supporting
memorandum,
Urbont
alleges
that,
following
the
Court's
letter,
Coles
was
served
with
a
notice
of
deposition for
June
19,
2014
but,
the
day
before
the
scheduled
deposition,
notified
Urbont
that
he would
not
be
able
to attend
and
suggested
instead
moving
the
deposition
to
June
24,
2014. Urbont
agreed
to
the
new
datei
however,
at
7:30
p
on
June
23, 2014,
after
Case 1:11-cv-04516-NRB Document 53 Filed 11/06/14 Page 3 of 11
View on Scribd
Back to document