Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The
Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're getting back to the
Tony Buzby response to the motion for sanctions that was
filed by Jay z One. Carter's lawyers do not and
cannot show that Buzzby's investigation was inadequate. Buzzby's investigation unquestionably
passes muster under Rule eleven, and his refusal to withdraw
plaintiff's claim against Carter unquestionably is justified and indeed mandated
bi applicable professional ethics, given that Carter's lawyers challenge that
investigation based principally on NBC News report questioning certain details
in plaintiff's allegations, but NBC itself acknowledge that its report
did not establish that plaintiff's claim was false. Moreover, when
Carter's lawyers relied on their own investigation concerning ownership of
the house where the rate may have taken place, they
got the details wrong see INFRA Pages seventeen and eighteen.
See also cast Away its declaration example c showing that
Combs on the property in question beginning in nineteen ninety eight,
contrary to Carter's lawyer's representation that he did not own
it until two thousand and one. As discussed above, both
Buzzby Firm and co counsel who referred plaintiff to Buzzby
Abbe Law Group performs extensive diligence on plaintiff and her claims,
including background checks, intensive interviews, and research and verification of
numerous details, including by a retired police detective. Carter's lawyer's
misconduct also includes shamefully attempting to destroy Busby's fine reputation
by baselessly arguing that Busby is a repeat offender of
Rule eleven. That allegation for which they cite no decision
by any court, is provably false. Indeed, the only purported
basis for their argument is a case in which they
concede that Busby voluntarily amended the pleading at issue to
correct the two mistaken factual assertions. Harter's lawyers also disparage
Busby by baselessly arguing that he is attempting to avoid
sanctions by failing to apply for pro hawk vice admission
that is blatantly false in any event, as mister Busby
advised the court in a December twenty, twenty twenty four
letter he is admitted to practice in the Eastern District
of New York and is applying for reciprocal admission to
the Southern District. Mister Busby is aware of no requirement
that he applied for interim pro hawc vice admission while
his application for reciprocal admission is pending. Of course, if
the court would prefer, mister Busby will apply for interim
pro hawk vice admission in short order. See Rules of
Professional Conduct twenty two and ycr R. Twelve hundred, Rule one.
A lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage the client
during the course of the representation, except as permitted or
acquired by these rules. While mister Busby conducted his own
investigation into plaintiff's allegations, Carter's lawyer's suggestion that mister Busby
was not permitted to rely on the work of other
attorneys is also baseless. This rule, by its term, does
not require signing counsel to have personally performed the inquiry.
What is crucial under the rule is not who makes
the inquiry, but whether, as a result, the attorney has
acquired knowledge of fact sufficient to enable him to certify
The paper is well grounded in fact. The duty of
inquiry therefore should be regarded as nondeligible but capable of
being satisfied by the attorney's acquisition of the product inquiry
conducted by others.
Speaker 2: William W.
Speaker 1: Schwarzer sanctions under the new federal Rule eleven. A closer
look one O four f dot R D one eight
one one eighty seven, nineteen eighty five, Buzzby has fully
complied with Rule eleven. There is no truth to Carter's
lawyer's contention that Buzzby conceded a failure to ve plaintiff allegations,
or that he sought to pass the blame to referring council. Rather,
Buzzby told NBC that he is referring council that had
already thoroughly vetted plaintiff's claims, and that he is continuing
to do so as any reasonable attorney would. Nor is
there any truth to Carter's lawyer's argument that Buzzby filed
this action for the improper purpose of destroying Carter's reputation.
To the contrary, the fac was filed to vindicate plaintiff's
rights and recover the damages for the trauma that she
has suffered. Only after all of this was done, and
after mister Busby and the firm determined that plaintiff's allegations
were credible, was the fac filed alleging, among other things,
that on September seventh, two thousand, Carter in Colmbs drugged
and raped her at an after party following the VMAs.
It's well established that attorneys are entitled to rely on
the representations of their client without having to assess his credibility,
because credibility is solely within the providence of the finder.
Effect g One Holdings Incorporated Versus Baron and Budd two
thousand and two WL one nine three four zero zero
four at thirteen SDN Y August twenty one, two thousand
and two. Rule eleven. Sanctions should only adhere if the
party was satisfied with the statements of a confidential witness
and other evidence were not competent or otherwise untrustworthy, as
there was nothing unreasonable about plaintiff's account of the night
in question, and there is nothing unreasonable about Council believing allegations. Furthermore,
establishing the reasonableness of Council's investigation is the fact that
in each of the pre filing interviews plaintiff appeared consisted
incredible in her account of what occurred in the night
in question. Ce Buzzby Declaration six seven to nine C. Jeffries,
two seventy five F. Dot supp. Two d At four
eighty one, finding that Plaintiff's council undertook reasonable prefiling inquiry,
where before proposing the third amended complaint, Plaintiff's council conducted
numerous interviews with their client and found them to be concent, distant,
and credible in his account. Thus, because counsel's prefiling investigation
was thorough and reasonable, Carter's motion should be denied. Moreover,
NBC News own acknowledgment that its report on which Carter's
lawyers principally rely, did not establish the falsity of plaintiff's claim,
and Carter's lawyer's own mistakes concerning details on which they
so rely a mistake not made by a sexual assault
victim unequivocally confirmed that Buzzby correctly has refused to knuckle
under to their wrongful demand that he withdraw his claim.
None of the factual issues raised by Carter's lawyers justify
sanctions in any event. Carter's lawyers purported certainty about what
happened to plaintiffs is utterly unjustified. When stripped of their
salacious rhetoric, Carter's lawyers challenge only plaintiff's allegations and recollections
regarding watching the MTV VIMA Award show on a JumboTron,
speaking to limousine driver during the show, the location of
the after party at which he was raped, speaking to
a celebrity at the party, and Plaintiff's father picking her
up after she was raped, as shown below. None of
those purported challenges are emeritis, and none of them come
close to proving as they must to justify any Rule
eleven sanction, let alone the most drastic sanction of all,
dismissal that Carter did not rape plaintiff, or that, as
Carter's lawyers also falsely say, Busby did not sufficiently investigate
and was not permitted to rely on plaintiff's on equivocal
recollection that Carter raped her. Certainly, on this prediscovery record,
this is no basis for assuming the truth of Carter's
lawyer's assertions to the contrary. At this stage of the litigation,
Plaintiff's allegations must be assumed to be true, and Carter's
lawyer's assertions, if they raise anything at all, at most,
raise only factual disputes that may not be resolved on
the prediscovery record.
Speaker 2: First, Carter's lawyers.
Speaker 1: Can test plaintiff's allegation she watched the VMAs on a
JumboTron because they claim there was no JumboTron at Radio
City that night. But even assuming arguendo that this is
the material fact, which it's not c. Sanderson twenty twenty four,
WL at three, declining to award sanctions because factual assertion
at issue was not a material misrepresentation, Carter's lawyers failed
to consider that plaintiff could have watched on a JumboTron
somewhere else, such as mere blocks away in the Times
Square area. Second, Carter's lawyers claimed to have debunked plaintiff's
allegation that she approached limousine drivers in hopes of gaining
entry to the VMAs or after parties, because they assert
the limousines were corded off by police barricades inaccessible to fans. But,
as is plainly clear from the video and photos on
which Carter's lawyers rely, the small limousine area at the
entrance to Radio City is not where limousine's park during
the show, but rather as merely where they dropped off
and picked up guests. Thus, nothing about the photos and
video proofs that plaintiff did not approach. Several limousine drivers
part nearby, and the limousine area is thus irrelevant. Third
with respect to plaintiff. Third, with respect to plaintiff's allegation
that at the party at which she was raped took
place at what she believed to be a large white
residence with a gated U shaped driveway. Carter's lawyers make
the relevant argument that photographs show that he attended a
party at a night club in New York, and that
Colms was photographed at the Lotus Club as well as
another establishment in New York City. Defense Memorandum nine ECF
sixty two to one, sixty two to two, sixty two
to three. However, even the NBC report on which Carter
heavily relies conceded that it's not clear what time those
images were taken or if Colms and Carter attended any
other after parties. In short, that Carter and Colms attended
one or more after parties does not mean that they
did not attend the party at which they were a plaintiff.
Carter's lawyers also argue that public property records confirmed that
Colmbs did not own a residence at the time that
matches plaintiff's description, pointing to property records for forty Hedges
Bank Drive and He's hamped in New York which purportedly
reflect that Colmbs did not own this residence until two
thousand and one. However, this argument fails for at least
two reasons. First, plaintiff does not allege that the home
she was taken to was owned by Combs, but in
any event, Carter's lawyer's representation to the court that Colmbs
did not own forty Hedges Bank Drive in two thousand
is plainly false. Property records revealed that Colmbs was first
listed on a deed for forty Hedges Bank Drive on
March thirteenth, nineteen ninety eight, and that he or a
company owned by him owned the property until selling it
on July twenty third, twenty twenty see Castowitz Declaration Exhibit C.
In fact, Colmb's notorious white part parties, which Carter often attended,
were held at this residence beginning in nineteen ninety eight,
including in July two thousand, just two months before the rape,
and in the following years. All Right, we're going to
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
going to finish this bad boy off. All of the
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going
to pick up right where we left off with the
Tony buzby response to the sanctions motion filed against him
by Jay Z and his lawyers. Fourth, with respect to
Carter's lawyer's argument that musician Benji Madden was not in
New York on the night in question, the FAC does
not identify any of the celebrities plaintiffs spoke toout the party. Rather,
the FAC merely alleges that plaintiff recognized many celebrities and
talked to several of the celebrities that she recognized. Argument
stems not from what is alleged in the FAC, but
from what the post filing interview plaintiff gave to an
NBC News reporter. It is utterly irrelevant that plaintiff may
have subsequently misremembered that Madden was one of the celebrities
that she interacted with, Especially given that the fac did
not identify any of the celebrity plaintiffs spoke to and
or misremembering if that is what it was, in no
way renders her recollection of the traumatic night not credible.
Fifth Carter's lawyers take issue with plaintiff's allegation that her
father picked her up from a gas station shortly before
dawn the morning after she was raped, on the grounds
that NBC reported that her father does not recall doing so.
Given that this occurred twenty four years ago, it's not
surprising that her father may not recall specific drives to
pick up his daughter. Moreover, his plaintiff stated in her
interview with NBC, and reflecting a reticence not uncommon in
sexual assault victims, she never told her father or anyone
else about what happened to her at the party. We
rode home in silence. He didn't ask me what happened.
He didn't ask me what I did or where I was,
she told NBC News. She never told anyone about the
alleged assault or wrote it down in a diary. Indeed,
given the passage of time, it's entirely possible that her
father is simply mistaken in recalling the time he once
picked her up in the middle of the night as
having been a local drive. None of the five factual
disputes raised in the motion come remotely close to satisfying
the high bar for imposing sanctions under Rule eleven, and
none of the challenged aleegations could possibly render plaintiff's claim
utterly lacking in factual support, as is required for sanctions,
particularly in light of the court's duty to resolve any
and all doubts in Buzby's favor. C. E. G. Loporto
Verus County Rensselaer, twenty eighteen and dn Y September twenty fourth,
twenty eighteen, denying motion for sanctions where resolving all doubts
in favor or party opposing sanctions, there was some arguable
basis for commencing the action. Quoting perez vers posse commatatis
three seventy three ft three d three twenty one three
twenty six, Second Circuit two thousand and four two, Carter's
motion should be denied because it seeks to evade Rule
twelve's requirement and impermissibly avoid discovery this motion should be
denied for an additional reason that Carter's lawyers filed it
plainly in an effort to avoid discovery and evade the
clearly satisfied requirement under Rule twelve that to survive a
motion to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
except that it is true to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face Ashcraw for zick Ball,
five fifty six, two thousand and nine. It is only
where no reasonable evidentiary basis for a factual claim was
disclosed in pre trial proceedings or at trial, that the
district court must then scrutinize the objective, reasonableleness of the
attorney's pre filing inquiry and the basis for the claim
developed by the inquiry. Calloway verse. Marvel Entertainment Group A
fifty four f Dot two D. Fourteen fifty two, fourteen seventy,
nineteen eighty eight, reversed on the grounds of subnom pavlech
versus Laflor verse Marvel Entertainment Group four ninety three US
one twenty, nineteen eighty nine. Accordingly, the issue of sanctions,
including with respect to pleadings, normally will be determined at
the end of litigation. See jawbone LLC. Verse don A U,
SDN Y, June twenty eight, two thousand and two. Refusing
to find at an early stage of the litigation, without
the benefit of discovery and the thorough analysis of the
merits of the case, that plaintiff's factual allegations are completely
without support Safe Strap Company Incorporated.
Speaker 2: Verse.
Speaker 1: Koala Corporation, two seventy f. Supp. SDNY, two thousand and three.
Addressing issues of sanctions at end of litigation is a
sensible practice, whereas here the thrust of the sanctions motion
is that institution of the case itself wasn't proper. Archie
Comic Publishers Incorporated versus The Carlow two thousand, SDN Y,
November twenty first, two thousand. The preference for the determination
of sanctions for allegedly frivolous pleadings at the end of
the case makes a good deal of sense. Here Carter
is seeking a Rule eleven determination before any discovery has
been undertaken at a minimument until discovery is being completed.
The court simply cannot find that no reasonable evidentiary basis
for a factual claim was disclosed in pre trial proceedings
or at trial, the prerequisite for any examination by this
Court and Council Rule eleven responsibilities see Callaway eight fifty
four ft two d at fourteen seventy. As the case
is Carter's lawyers themselves site may clear, there's no basis
for dismissal three.
Speaker 2: Carter's lawyers should be ordered.
Speaker 1: To pay plaintiffs attorneys fees for opposing this frivolous motion.
Rule eleven C two expressly provides the Court the authority
to award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including
attorney fees, incurred for the motion. Fed Our siv p.
Eleven C two. Courts in this circuit have exercised this authority.
Where is here a Rule eleven motion was filed four
in proper purposes, see le Vers Grand Seishon, New York,
twenty fourteen, SDN Y January seventeenth, twenty fourteen, awarding the
non move in attorney fees where the motion was filed
for in proper purpose. Caribbean Wholesales and Service Corporation First
US JBC Court one oh one, SDN Y two thousand.
See also Fedar siv p. Eleven Advisory Committee notes Rule eleven.
Motions should not be prepared to intimidate an adversary into
withdrawing contentions that are fairly debatable. As demonstrated above, the
motion is factually and illegally merrily and was file for
an improper purpose see Federer sivp Dot eleven b one,
describing improper purpose as including to arrass, cause unnecessary delay,
or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. None of Plaintiff's
allegations in this action are demonstrably false, and the motion
is proffered no evidence that would warrant their withdrawal, much
less an award of sanctions against plaintiff's council. Carter's meritless
motion crosses the line between Zealou's advocacy and sanctionable conduct
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure eleven. See Sheet Metal
Workers National Pension Fund versus Sheet Metal Workers Incorporated, twenty twelve,
SDN Y January fifth, twenty twelve. Accordingly, Carter should be
required to reimburse plaintiff and her council for their legal
fees in opposing this motion. Carter's lawyer's reliance on Levigne
verse FDIC two ft three D four seventy six is
utterly misplaced. That case bears no resemblance to this case
in Levigne. Two years after commencing the action, after deposition
testimony established that a particular witness had never conducted business
in Connecticut, plaintiff's lawyer filed an amended complaint, adding that
a witness as a defendant, falsely asserting that personal jurisdiction
existed on the grounds that the witness regularly did and
solicited business in Hartford, Connecticut. The lawyer also contradicted in
many material respects the client's warned deposition testimony idea at
four seventy eight. Thus, it was the lawyer's blatant disregard
of the facts and his concocting facts that is entirely
in opposite. There, the plaintiff's lawyer, for more than a
year after being retained till when he filed a complaint,
did not attempt to investigate plaintiff's claims idea at six
forty six. Furthermore, plaintiff's attorney persisted in pursuing the case
even after discovery failed to elicit any evidence corroborating its allegations.
See Martha Management Service Incorporated. Versus Vessel My Girls two
two ft three D three fifteen, three twenty five and
three twenty six d C. Circuit two thousand. Court did
not abuse discretion when in unduly prolonged litigation in which
Council engaged in a name calling, personal attacks, and petty
arguments and burdened the court with repetitions of arguments already rejected.
Court's su Wasesponte dismissed counterclaims upon finding that they were
frivolous and designed primarily to harass and delay a final
resolution of the case.
Speaker 2: Perry versus Gore.
Speaker 1: Two thousand and nine WL two five eight zero three
two four at three and five, ten and eleven dismissing
plaintiffs inmate civil rights action as a sanction where a
plaintiff filed twenty nine civil rights cases alleging similar fact
patterns and had admitted that he had filed fraudulent claims
and allegations in at least two of those actions, Noting
that plaintiff cannot play one district against another and assert
as valid allegations from the same fact pattern in one
court that he calls fraud in another. Conclusion, for the
reason set forth above, the Court should deny the motion
in its entirety, and plaintiff and our counsel should be
awarded fees and costs incurred in opposing it. This document
was dated January twenty second, twenty twenty five, and it
was signed.
Speaker 2: By Mark E. Cassewitz. All of the
Speaker 1: Information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box