In today’s development in the ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit over the “Dem Bow Riddim,” Pryor Cashman LLP, the legal team representing defendants Rodney Sebastian Clark (aka El Chombo) and a plethora of reggaeton stars and their labels, has filed a motion to strike three expert declarations submitted by the plaintiffs Cleveland Constantine Browne et al.
According to court documents obtained by WMV, the motion, filed on today September 26, 2025, in the Central District of California, alleges that the plaintiffs’ experts introduced new opinions at the summary judgment stage that contradict their prior testimony and were not disclosed during discovery.
Contradictory Testimony and Late Disclosures
The 21 page motion further highlights discrepancies between the experts’ initial reports and their later declarations. Musicologist Judith Finell and producer Peter Ashbourne-Firman initially stated that they did not conduct prior art searches related to the alleged “Dem Bow Riddim.” However, in their recent declarations, they claimed to have conducted such searches, introducing new opinions that were not previously disclosed.
The defendants argue that these late-stage declarations are an attempt to address weaknesses in the plaintiffs’ case. The motion states:
“These declarations are an eleventh-hour attempt to patch a gaping evidentiary hole.”
Similarly, ethnomusicologist Kenneth Bilby, in his initial report, vaguely referred to prior art but did not specifically address the combination of seven elements central to the case. In his recent declaration, he claimed to have conducted a prior art search on this specific combination, a new opinion not disclosed earlier.
Pattern of Misconduct
The defendants contend that this pattern of late and contradictory disclosures is part of a broader strategy by the plaintiffs to gain an unfair advantage. They point to previous instances where the plaintiffs attempted to introduce new experts after discovery deadlines had passed, leading to sanctions. The motion asserts:
“Plaintiffs have a history of attempting to introduce new expert testimony after discovery deadlines have passed, leading to sanctions in this case.”
Request for Relief
In light of these issues, the defendants are requesting the court to strike the three expert declarations and to award fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. They argue that the plaintiffs’ actions have prejudiced the defendants and disrupted the litigation process.
“No expert can alter their reports and testimony simply because it suits the needs of their client at the moment. It is disingenuous and highly improper (as well as being utterly dishonest).”
The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for November 7, 2025.
