This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Artist News Brands & Merch Business News Legal
Jay-Z’s work diary won’t be sealed in perfume dispute, although some information will be redacted
By Chris Cooke | Published on Wednesday 30 September 2020
A New York court has said that Jay-Z can’t seal documents relating to his past schedule in an ongoing legal dispute with a perfume company. However, he can redact any personal or contact information in his work diary, such as phone numbers and email addresses.
Fragrance company Parlux sued Jay-Z – real name Shawn Carter – back in 2016, accusing the rapper of failing to meet his commitments to plug Gold Jay-Z, a perfume that it had launched in partnership with him. A lot of the legal dispute to date has involved Carter seeking to protect his privacy.
He initially tried to resist the demand from Parlux that he hand over his work diary, the perfume company wanting to track the rapper’s movements during the time when he was meant to be promoting the fragrance. There was also a delay to Carter giving a filmed deposition because of his concern that the recorded testimony could leak.
The latest hearing on the case considered Carter’s request that a load of documents relating to the dispute, including his work diary, be sealed and therefore kept from public view. But the judge concluded that that wasn’t justified.
According to Law360, the judge said: “I mean, we’re not talking about the secret sauce of Coca-Cola here. I think there’s good cause to redact the licence plate number, social security numbers, personal information like a phone number or email address, but otherwise, respectfully, I don’t think you meet the burden”.
We know this because Law360’s journalist tuned into the online hearing, although initially their request to listen in on the session was declined, even though such proceedings usually take place in the public domain in New York state. Apparently their request was at first denied because of concerns expressed by Carter’s legal team.
The lawyers say that their concern was only because it wasn’t initially clear what the session would involve and whether Carter’s personal information would be directly discussed. Once it became clear it would not, they withdrew their opposition to a media presence.
