Los Angeles, June 23, 2025 — In the escalating copyright dispute involving Caribbean producers Steely and Cleveland Browne and several key music industry figures over the Fish Market, Dem Bow and Pounder Riddims, the plaintiffs have fiercely opposed a defense demand for over $40,000 in attorneys’ fees. In a newly filed response, attorneys from Doniger/Burroughs described the fee request as inflated, redundant, and ethically compromised, especially in light of prior court-sanctioned misconduct by defense counsel.
According to court documents obtained by WMV, the dispute stems from a motion filed by the defense to exclude three witnesses during the “protectability and originality” phase of the lawsuit. The witnesses in question were: producer Shaun “Sting International” Pizzonia, disclosed as a non-retained expert; Donovan Thompson, a fact witness; and Hopeton “Scientist” Brown, a pioneering dub engineer and fact witness. On May 22, 2025, the court issued a mixed ruling — excluding Pizzonia and Thompson, while allowing Brown’s testimony with the condition that he be made available for deposition.
The court found that Pizzonia, known for producing hits like Shaggy’s “It Wasn’t Me,” had been disclosed only a week before the discovery deadline on March 21, 2025 — well past the January 10, 2025, cutoff for expert disclosures. Plaintiffs argued that his prior deposition as a fact witness was sufficient and that his expert role was a supplemental clarification. Judge A. Joel Richlin rejected that explanation, writing, “Whatever the reason for Plaintiffs’ disclosure of Pizzonia as a non-retained expert for the first time on March 21, 2025, the disclosure was untimely.” He also noted that the late designation denied the defense the opportunity to respond with a rebuttal expert or strategic planning, adding, “Defendants have been foreclosed from providing a rebuttal expert report, deposing Pizzonia as an expert, and otherwise strategically planning… in the manner they deemed best.”
Donovan Thompson was similarly excluded. The plaintiffs had begun trying to locate him in January 2025 but did not disclose him until March 21, just days before the close of discovery. The court ruled that disclosure should have occurred at the point plaintiffs began pursuing contact, not when contact was achieved. Judge Richlin wrote, “There is simply no excuse for not disclosing Thompson at the point when Plaintiff Browne began looking for a way to get in touch with [him]… as early as February 2025.” Because of the delay, the defense lacked time to depose Thompson or respond before filing for summary judgment. “It is simply too late… even if Defendants had agreed to take Thompson’s deposition after the Discovery Cut-Off,” the ruling added.
Hopeton Brown, however, was allowed to testify. Plaintiffs explained that they only realized his relevance on March 12, 2025, after speaking with Thompson. They disclosed Brown nine days later, and the court found this to be a timely and justified inclusion. Judge Richlin stated, “The fact that Plaintiff Browne was generally aware of Brown as a popular dub mixer does not call into question Plaintiff Browne’s declaration that he only recently learned of Brown’s involvement in Ellos Benia.” Still, the court required Brown to be made available for deposition before any summary judgment deadlines.
While the court sided with the defense in part, it stopped short of granting the full fee request. It did, however, find that plaintiffs’ late disclosures justified some cost recovery, stating, “Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to award Defendants reasonable expenses incurred to bring the Motion.” The judge encouraged both parties to settle the matter informally before further filings.
Instead, the defense submitted a bill for over $40,000 in legal fees, prompting a scathing response from plaintiffs. “Defense counsel not only failed to succeed on this argument but lost as they gained no relief that had not already been offered by Plaintiffs,” the filing reads.
Plaintiffs argue that the $40,302.00 requested is vastly disproportionate to the scope and outcome of the motion. “The fee request should be denied as excessive, redundant and unreasonable,” they wrote, criticizing the defense for using five attorneys — including three partners — to handle what they say was a routine motion. They further allege that portions of the billed work were copied from a previously failed motion to exclude other witnesses, describing it as unjustified “recycled work.”
The fee dispute is compounded by ethical concerns. On June 12, the court sanctioned defense attorneys Donald Zakarian and Kenneth Freundlich for serious discovery violations during a deposition. Judge Richlin found that both attorneys improperly coached their expert witness and interrupted questioning with argumentative objections, even speaking for the witness off-camera. Plaintiffs now argue that this misconduct undermines any credibility behind the defense’s fee request. “There is now substantial evidence that Mr. Zakarian is willing to make false statements to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court,” they wrote.
Another red flag raised by plaintiffs is that some of the invoices submitted in support of the $40K claim were addressed to Vydia, Inc., a music distribution company that is not listed as a party in the case. “Much of the exhibit attached to [Akley’s] declaration purporting to contain invoices to ‘Vydia, Inc.’… does not appear to be a party to this case,” the plaintiffs noted.
In their conclusion, plaintiffs urged the court to either deny the request entirely or cap the award at $10,000, reflecting the motion’s partial success, duplicative billing, recycled work, and defense misconduct. Alternatively, they asked the court to defer ruling on fees until after it fully assesses the implications of the sanctions order. “The comparative conduct at issue should be considered in connection with the fee awards, particularly given defense counsel’s recent flouting of this court’s discovery rules and guidelines.”
