Desiste v. Sobande
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-06947
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Desiste v. Sobande, Judge Failla denied Desiste’s renewed request for discovery about Sobande’s post-death earnings under a different management agreement.
Bruce Desiste and Solomon Sobande, the parties to the dispute over whether Desiste was entitled to a share of Sobande’s commissions.
What happened
In Desiste v. Sobande, Bruce Desiste sought additional discovery about money Solomon Sobande received after the June 18, 2018 death of XXXTentacion. Desiste focused on commissions related to works released before the artist’s death.
Sobande argued that those commissions came from a June 28, 2018 agreement with the artist’s mother, not from his earlier agreement with the artist. The court reviewed both agreements and the parties’ deposition transcripts. It concluded that Sobande understood the later agreement to govern his commissions after it was signed, while Desiste’s alleged agreement entitled him to 20% only of money received under the earlier management agreement.
The court therefore denied Desiste’s request for additional fact discovery. Judge Failla did not decide the ultimate merits of the parties’ dispute in this order.
The detailed version
- Desiste v. Sobande · No. 1:20-cv-06947
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 7, 2021
Background
At a September 2, 2021 conference, Plaintiff Bruce Desiste renewed his request for discovery concerning money Defendant Solomon Sobande received after the June 18, 2018 death of XXXTentacion, referred to in the opinion as the “Artist.” Desiste specifically sought information about commissions Sobande earned after the Artist’s death that related to works released before the death.
Sobande argued that any such money was earned under a June 28, 2018 management agreement with Cleopatra Bernard, the Artist’s mother (the “Bernard Agreement”), rather than under a January 28, 2017 management agreement between Sobande and the Artist (the “Initial Management Agreement”). At the court’s request, the parties submitted the two agreements and transcripts of Desiste’s and Sobande’s depositions for private court review.
Court’s Analysis
The court focused on Sobande’s deposition testimony that he entered into the Bernard Agreement because he understood, partly based on a discussion with counsel for the Artist’s estate, that the Initial Management Agreement was no longer operative. The court expressly set aside whether that legal advice was correct. It found that Sobande chose not to pursue rights under the Initial Management Agreement and instead negotiated a new agreement with Bernard. Sobande also understood that commissions he received after the Bernard Agreement—whether related to works released before or after the Artist’s death—would be earned under the Bernard Agreement rather than the Initial Management Agreement.
The alleged agreement between Desiste and Sobande entitled Desiste to 20% of the “gross receipts” Sobande received under the exclusive management agreement between Sobande and the Artist. The court concluded that this provision did not entitle Desiste to gross receipts received under other agreements, including the Bernard Agreement. As a result, the requested discovery concerned money outside the scope of the litigation as described in the order.
Disposition
The court denied Desiste’s request for additional fact discovery. This order addressed the scope of discovery and did not resolve the ultimate merits of the parties’ dispute over their alleged agreement.
Note on Evidence
Desiste argued that the statement by counsel for the Artist’s estate was hearsay. The court explained that it was considering the statement not for whether it was true, but for its effect on Sobande’s state of mind and later decisions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.