Talk:Kesha v. Dr. Luke

Kesha's videotaped deposition section
Moved this sentence and citations to new section as this is still a key piece of active lawsuits and not part of the below referenced trial verdict and aftermath sections OpenDoc3551 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York suit was filed by Dr. Luke -- and Kesha responded by counter-claiming
The New York lawsuit was filed by Dr. Luke -- Kesha then counter claimed.

The New York lawsuit was inspired by Kesha's and her mother's statements, Kesha's refusal to work, and Kesha's California lawsuit.

Not *all* of her counter claims were thrown out: http://www.mtv.com/news/2863206/kesha-abuse-claims-dismissed/ "One counterclaim still remains on the table: If the judge agrees that Kesha’s contract was voided when Dr. Luke sued her for breach of contract in 2014, she may still have a chance at getting out of her deal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.44.196 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Judge Shirley Kornreich, 60 Centre Street - Proskauer Rose Judges, Refusing To Recuse Herself Inspite of Conflict of Interest
In Kesha v. Dr. Luke Case, Kesha's attorneys asked the 60 Centre Street - Proskauer Rose judge, Shirley Kornreich, to recuse herself because they had discovered that Dr. Luke and Sony were represented by the law firm - Proskauer Rose - of the Judge, Judge Shirley Kornreich's husband, Ed Kornreich, i.e., Ed Kornreich is a senior partner of law firm Proskauer Rose; Judge Kornreich refused to recuse herself and berated them for requesting she do so.

In 2004 there was an FBI Investigation of Ed and Shirley Kornreich, as well as 1 of Shirley Kornreich's 60 Centre Street colleagues, for several times failing to recuse herself when party to case before her was represented by her husband's law firm Proskauer Rose, and for accepting goods and services in exchange for doing so.

Today, Shirley Kornreich and her colleague, Anil Singh are known as 60 Centre Street - Proskauer Rose Judges for taking on, especialy sex assaults cases, cases in which Proskauer Rose is representin the accused, and steering those cases, sitting on the cases, not adjudicating the cases and not recusing themselves so that other judges can adjudicate them. 209.36.88.148 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How is it a conflict of interest if she's defending the side that she's linked to personally? And do you not think a woman is able to separate her personal and professional lives??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Iam kinda having a problem with your grammer here. Do you have a cite for your allegations? 69.248.111.52 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Dr Luke
I think this article should refer to both parties by their real names, not their professional ones. By refer to the gentleman as Dr Luke, it gives him credence. He is not a Dr of any field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowLeopard86 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this sugghestion, but I have added an explicit reference linking "Dr. luke" to Mr. Gottwald, as it appeared to be missing. Afterward I found that the connection had been made explicit, but it was several sections down in the "Trial" section. However the use of Dr. Luke begins long before that. Ileanadu (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wendy Williams isn't Dr. Luke's only supporter
Katy Perry adamantly denied Kesha's lies and it's pretty much easily assumed that everyone who has worked with Dr. Luke since obviously supports his side... why not include the dissenting voices too??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested claims in summary/introduction
At present (July 15, 2024), the introduction/summary text includes the following paragraph:

'On February 19, 2016, a request made by Serbert (Kesha) for a preliminary injunction was denied. Kesha appealed the decision the   following month. On April 6, 2016, New York Justice Shirley Kornreich, whose husband is an attorney at a law firm with representatives such as Sony (Kesha's record label), dismissed all of Kesha's counter-claims against Dr. Luke. Kesha and her legal team appealed the injunction decision, and on June 7, 2016, Kesha was recorded in a deposition stating all the allegations' details.'

I have edited this to the following:

'On February 19, 2016, a request made by Serbert (Kesha) for a preliminary injunction was denied. Kesha appealed the decision the   following month. On April 6, 2016, New York Justice Shirley Kornreich, whose husband is an attorney at a law firm with representatives such as Sony (Kesha's record label), dismissed all of Kesha's counter-claims against Dr. Luke. Kesha and her legal team appealed the injunction decision, and on June 7, 2016, Kesha was recorded in a deposition stating all the allegations' details.'

This paragraph may be read to suggest that Shirley Kornreich dismissed all counterclaims not based on the case, but instead the dismissal was made for the benefit of her husband/his employer/Sony, i.e., there was impropriety of some sort. At present, the main body of the article does not discuss alleged links (or criticism there of) between Shirley Kornreich, her husband Ed Kormreich, Proskauer Rose LLP (legal firm), or Sony records.

Also, no reliable source has been given. The reference used earlier in this paragraph (from The Guardian) doesn't include any mention of Ed Kormreich or Proskauer Rose.

Some quick research shows that Ed Kornreich, husband of Shirley Kornreich indeed works at Proskauer Rose LLP, as a specialist and adviser in legal, regulatory and business issues related to health care services, and long standing chair of the health care services division. Proskauer Rose is a huge legal firm with over 800 lawyers internationally, in vastly different areas of law. Indeed health care services and regulatory affairs.

I don't dispute that Proskauer Rose may have represented Sony at some point, but IMHO, as a specialist in law applying to health care services and regulatory affairs, it seems highly unlikely Ed Kornreich would have ever represented Sony in any way.

If there is substantiative evidence of impropriety, foul play or collusion regarding Shirley Kornreich as judge, then this should be included in the main body of the article first, and not left as a suggestive comment in the introduction, which is intended to be a brief, mostly conclusive summary. Montezuma69 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Correction, it is mentioned in a sentence in the main body, as 'some have criticised' the purported links. I think reference to this criticism and potential conflict of interest is fair in the body is fair, yet it isn't conclusive nor is it discussed in enough depth to be included in the summary (as it stands). Montezuma69 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)