event Dr. Luke v. Kesha: Oral argument at New York's highest court on April 18

[suburbannature]

oop she got him with that question

[JayG]

Luke has so much money, just ******* let her free 💀

[visions]

It's so obvious he is a public figure c'mon now.. He has a stage name of DR LUKE alone... As a music producer you don't have a name like that if you don't want to gain fame of some kind. 

[josesuxx]

Why does Kesha's lawyer stutter so much? 

[fountain]

Puke’s lawyers were absolutely dragged, the second one in particular. The judges literally laughing, I…

 

If there’s any justice they know what to do 🙏🏼

[TomTom]

Oral argument of Kesha's appeals has concluded after 71 minutes.

Need to rewatch it to give a proper analysis, but my first impression is that this was overall a rather positive outcome for Kesha.

[Johnny Jacobs]

Is it even close to an end? 

[TomTom]

Just now, Johnny Jacobs said:

Is it even close to an end? 

If she wins both of her appeals, then yes.

If not, then no.

[AlbertoBouvier]

And when do we know the results 

[cyclone]

CLOCK! HA!!!! *****!!!!!! 

[TomTom]

1 minute ago, AlbertoBouvier said:

And when do we know the results 

Next month.

[cyclone]

This was very pleasing to watch christina wouldnt stop slipping

[BornUnbroken]

ugh couldn't watch this because of work, but from tweets + this thread it seems like finally something positive for Kesha.

 

Thank you @TomTom2288for always breaking these things down so well btw, I appreciate your summaries 

[Power love]

Where is everyone watching

[TomTom]

4 minutes ago, BornUnbroken said:

ugh couldn't watch this because of work, but from tweets + this thread it seems like finally something positive for Kesha.

 

I'm re-watching it currently so I can give a full analysis, don't worry!

 

4 minutes ago, BornUnbroken said:

Thank you @TomTom2288for always breaking these things down so well btw, I appreciate your summaries 

You're welcome and thanks! 

 

2 minutes ago, Power love said:

Where is everyone watching

I posted the live stream link on the last page or second to last page, you have to either go back to the beginning of that stream (don't know if it still works now) or wait for the regular recording to be uploaded within the next days.

Edited April 18, 2023 by TomTom2288

[Power love]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:15 AM, TomTom2288 said:

On the Youtube channel of New York‘s highest court, I linked it in the FAQ.

 

https://youtube.com/@newyorkstatecourtofappeals7445

 

It takes place at 8 PM for you and me.

This one?

[TomTom]

2 minutes ago, Power love said:

This one?

That's the channel, I posted the actual stream link later on too.

[Espresso]

2 hours ago, TomTom2288 said:

Oral argument of Kesha's appeals has concluded after 71 minutes.

Need to rewatch it to give a proper analysis, but my first impression is that this was overall a rather positive outcome for Kesha.

I'm not a lawyer and have been tracking this saga to less than 1/8th that you have, but I have to agree  

[Recycled stardust]

The original livestream is here: https://www.youtube.com/live/86Liz3PUvwQ

 

It's unlisted (it doesn't appear on the channel) but still online.

 

Best thing to do now is wait for @TomTom2288's résumé 

[TomTom]

My analysis:

 

So, I've re-watched the whole oral argument.

 

Overall, I'd say this was not a total slam dunk for either side (which is rare at this court anyways), but it definitely went better for Kesha than for Luke and a positive outcome for her is certainly in the realm of possibility.

 

Here's how I think the judges are leaning on an issue-by-issue basis.

 

Disclaimer: Questions asked do not necessarily have to be conclusive of how a judge will ultimately rule and it's certainly not a guarantee, but it's the best and only thing we have currently.

 

1) Anti-SLAPP law:

• Rivera/Wilson: These two were solidly pro-Kesha on the retroactivity issue in my view which is not surprising since they are the two most liberal judges on the court. I'd definitely expect them to rule pro-Kesha on this issue.
• Cannataro/Garcia: Less clear, but there are some indications that signal pro-Kesha to me. Cannataro repeatedly emphasized the (unambiguous) "commenced or continued" language and Garcia picked up the argument that there isn't necessarily a "retroactive" application at all by applying the statute to pending cases. I'd consider them slightly leaning towards Kesha.
• Troutman/Singas: Total wildcards to me. Troutman only asked like one question for each side and Singas didn't say anything at all with respect to this issue. It's impossible to predict how they are leaning based on the questions alone. Could go either way.

Overall, I'd say a 4 : 2 outcome in favor of Kesha (which is all we need, 4 judges is enough for a majority) is definitely possible, maybe even more decisive.

 

2) Litigation-related privileges:

• Rivera/Wilson: Same pattern as before, they are clearly solidly pro-Kesha here based on the arguments they were making and questions they asked.
• Cannataro/Garcia: I see them again as leaning pro-Kesha at least on the general litigation privilege. Right when Luke's lawyer started to argue, they immediately made the "how can there be an exception to an absolute privilege?" point pretty assertively and Garcia picked that up later on by citing a specific case. Cannataro also pretty clearly stated that Kesha was indeed prosecuting her lawsuit in a legitimate way. Garcia gave more mixed vibes because it seems like he believes there is a "sham exception" to the pre-litigation privilege, so perhaps there will be some distinctions between the different privileges at issue.
• Troutman/Singas: Again, total wildcards. They basically did not address this topic at all, so it's impossible to predict how they are leaning here. Could go either way. Singas asked one question at the end that can be construed as pro-Luke, but that's too vague to predict how she's leaning imo.

Overall, I think a 4 : 2 outcome in favor of Kesha is definitely possible with respect to the general litigation privilege. I'd be a bit more cautious with respect to the pre-litigation privilege and it seems like they didn't really talk about NY Civil Rights Law §74 much at all, so it's hard to predict that part of it. 

 

3) Public figure:

• Rivera/Wilson/Singas: These three were most clearly pro-Kesha on the public figure issue. Wilson less explicit than on the other issues, but I think it's pretty much guaranteed he will rule in favor of Kesha on this issue too based on his general ideological tendencies.
• Cannataro/Troutman: I see them as leaning pro-Kesha. Cannataro pointed out how much Dr. Luke emphasized his success in the music industry and Troutman mentioned his prominent associations with female artists. Though Cannataro seems harder to read because he also asked Kesha's lawyer some questions.
• Garcia: He was basically completely silent with respect to this issue, so not really possible to predict how he is leaning.

Overall, I think there is definitely a 4 : 2 majority at least for the limited-purpose public figure issue (which would be sufficient), general-purpose public figure could maybe turn out a bit more controversial.

 

1 hour ago, Recycled stardust said:

Best thing to do now is wait for @TomTom2288's résumé 

There you go!

 

2 hours ago, Espresso said:

I'm not a lawyer and have been tracking this saga to less than 1/8th that you have, but I have to agree  

Great we're on the same page! 

Edited April 18, 2023 by TomTom2288

[CroNich]

4 minutes ago, TomTom2288 said:

My analysis:

 

So, I've re-watched the whole oral argument.

 

Overall, I'd say this was not a total slam dunk for either side (which is rare at this court anyways), but it definitely went better for Kesha than for Luke and a positive outcome for her is certainly in the realm of possibility.

 

Here's how I think the judges are leaning on an issue-by-issue basis.

 

Disclaimer: Questions asked do not necessarily have to be conclusive of a judge will ultimately rule and it's certainly not a guarantee, but it's the best and only thing we have currently.

 

1) Anti-SLAPP law:

• Rivera/Wilson: These two were solidly pro-Kesha on the retroactivity issue in my view which is not surprising since they are the two most liberal judges on the court. I'd definitely expect them to rule pro-Kesha on this issue.
• Cannataro/Garcia: Less clear, but there are some indications that signal pro-Kesha to me. Cannataro repeatedly emphasized the (unambiguous) "commenced or continued" language and Garcia picked up the argument that there isn't necessarily a "retroactive" application at all by applying the statute to pending cases. I'd consider them slightly leaning towards Kesha.
• Troutman/Singas: Total wildcards to me. Troutman only asked like one question for each side and Singas didn't say anything at all with respect to this issue. It's impossible to predict how they are leaning based on the questions alone. Could go either way.

Overall, I'd say a 4 : 2 outcome in favor of Kesha (which is all we need, 4 judges is enough for a majority) is definitely possible, maybe even more decisive.

 

2) Litigation-related privileges:

• Rivera/Wilson: Same pattern as before, they are clearly solidly pro-Kesha here based on the arguments they were making and questions they asked.
• Cannataro/Garcia: I see them again as leaning pro-Kesha at least on the general litigation privilege. Right when Luke's lawyer started to argue, they immediately made the "how can there be an exception to an absolute privilege?" point pretty assertively and Garcia picked that up later on by citing a specific case. Cannataro also pretty clearly stated that Kesha was indeed prosecuting her lawsuit in a legitimate way. Garcia gave more mixed vibes because it seems like he believes there is a "sham exception" to the pre-litigation privilege, so perhaps there will be some distinctions between the different privileges at issue.
• Troutman/Singas: Again, total wildcards. They basically did not address this topic at all, so it's impossible to predict how they are leaning here. Could go either way. Singas asked one question at the end that can be construed as pro-Luke, but that's too vague to predict how she's leaning imo.

Overall, I think a 4 : 2 outcome in favor of Kesha is definitely possible with respect to the general litigation privilege. I'd be a bit more cautious with respect to the pre-litigation privilege and it seems like they didn't really talk about NY Civil Rights Law §74 much at all, so it's hard to predict that part of it. 

 

3) Public figure:

• Rivera/Wilson/Singas: These three were most clearly pro-Kesha on the public figure issue. Wilson less explicit than on the other issues, but I think it's pretty much guaranteed he will rule in favor of Kesha on this issue too based on his general ideological tendencies.
• Cannataro/Troutman: I see them as leaning pro-Kesha. Cannataro pointed out how much Dr. Luke emphasized his success in the music industry and Troutman mentioned his prominent associations with female artists. Though Cannataro seems harder to read because he also asked Kesha's lawyer some questions.
• Garcia: He was basically completely silent with respect to this issue, so not really possible to predict how he is leaning.

Overall, I think there is definitely a 4 : 2 majority at least for the limited-purpose public figure issue (which would be sufficient), general-purpose public figure could maybe turn out a bit more controversial.

 

There you go!

 

Great we're on the same page! 

Thanks Tom!

 

Sounds like Kesha is in a much better position than Luke at the moment. Don’t want to get my hopes up but hoping for a positive result for our girl!!

[TomTom]

1 hour ago, Recycled stardust said:

It's unlisted (it doesn't appear on the channel) but still online.

 

The regular recording for each case argued will be uploaded in the coming days, the livestream is always unlisted.

[Junlin]

Thank you TomTom you are amazing

[Zahun]

Thank you Tom for the very clear info, hope it will go well for her as you summarized. 

[AnonnonA]

Really hoping for a positive outcome for Kesha