In Fat Joe Suit against Dixon Sealing Did Not Follow Rules and Now Must Be Justified

In Fat Joe Suit against Dixon Sealing Did Not Follow Rules and Now Must Be Justified by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 4  – 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 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 9, Blackburn filed a complaint: Filing on Patreon here On January 20 Judge Rochon held a conference on depositions. Blackburn said Dixon could be at danger entering and exiting; Fat Joe's lawyer was dismissed and Judge Rochon said there is a right to in-person depositions. So it will be at a midtown law firm on February 6, time and location not reported here. But it did not happen, as described in a February 10 conference that Inner City Press live tweeted. On March 4, "Defendants' motion to compel and reopen discovery at Dkt. 152 is DENIED. However, the parties shall meet and confer to resolve any issues regarding the redactions in Plaintiff's production. With respect to the exhibits to Dkt. 152, Defendants failed to comply with the Court-ordered Protective Order dated December 8, 2025 by filing such documents without following the process set forth in that Order, including paragraph 21. Defendants are advised that future non-compliance will not be tolerated. Plaintiffs request to strike the documents filed as exhibits to Dkt. 152 is DENIED. By March 16, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer regarding those documents, and file a joint letter motion with the Court identifying the documents, or portions thereof, that either party wishes to remain under seal, providing justification for such sealing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 3/4/2026)." Watch this site. Moreon 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