Suge Knight v. Kanye West -- Judge Seitz Presiding!!

You know, sometimes coming up with decent material for this here blog thingy can be difficult.

Some stories are flat-out boring, some are interesting but lack an angle to work off of, and sometimes there's just not that much happening.

But then there are times when blog manna falls from the skies:

Suge Knight has changed his lawsuit against Kanye West to also include the Miami night-club that turned into a crime scene back in 2005, a place Kanye held his pre-MTV Video Music Awards party. Suge Knight was robbed and shot in the leg at the the South Beach club and first sued Kanye, along with his "G.O.O.D." Music group, a year and a half ago but now Suge is adding people he wants money from.

The lawsuit was transferred from California to Miami district court and Suge's lawyer Marc Brumer says "People shouldn't underestimate Suge Knight," sounding very much like his client. The lawyer, yes a man of law, added "He's a very adept businessman. He's a mess, but he's sharp. Nobody likes Kanye West anymore. Even though he's still selling millions of records, everybody's sick of him."

Oh lordie, let's take a look at the docket.

You've got Marc Lawrence Brumer representing Knight, while Kanye has Lew Jack.

Then you have Jay Green representing the hotel group, who details here what it takes to schedule a deposition and CME of Mr. Knight:

a. Specifically, on June 18, 2009, undersigned counsel, knowing that it could take some time to schedule the Plaintiff’s deposition given his celebrity status, requested dates from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding his client’s availability to be deposed in this matter.

b. On November 20, 2009, Mr. Adam Josephs, counsel for G.O.O.D. and West sent Plaintiff’s counsel follow-up correspondence advising Plaintiff’s counsel that the Defendants were still waiting for Plaintiff’s availability for deposition.

c. On February 8, 2010, undersigned counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel e-mail correspondence requesting for a third time deposition dates for the Plaintiff and reminding Plaintiff’s counsel of the upcoming discovery deadline.

d. On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the undersigned’s request by requesting from defense counsel dates during which we were available to take the Plaintiff’s deposition in March of 2010.

e. On February 16, 2010, Mr. Josephs advised Plaintiff’s counsel that all defense counsel were available to take the Plaintiff’s deposition on March 25 and requested confirmation as to the Plaintiff’s availability as well as requesting dates for his client to undergo a CME.

f. On February 18, 2010, undersigned counsel sent a second letter to Plaintiff’s counsel again asking for confirmation as to Plaintiff’s availability on March 25.

g. On February 20, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that the Plaintiff would be available for his deposition on March 25 and requested defense counsel to set Plaintiff’s IME on either March 23 or March 24. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s deposition was set for March 25 and a CME was set for March 23 at 4:00 p.m.

h. On March 22, 2010, undersigned’s office confirmed the CME set for March 23 with the Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Plaintiff’s inability to attend same or the deposition two days later was not mentioned at that time.

i. Rather, on March 23 at 2:33 p.m., undersigned counsel received an email from Plaintiff’s counsel advising that the Plaintiff would no longer be available for his previously scheduled deposition on March 25 and that he would not be attending theCME which was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. that same day. The Plaintiff’s reason for cancelling both the CME and the deposition was that the Plaintiff was in a car accident two weeks ago and currently has an infection. Undersigned counsel also received an e-mail from a California doctor advising that the Plaintiff would not be able to sit for a deposition for a 3-month period of time.

j. On March 23, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he would be moving for a continuance of the pretrial deadlines set by this Court in the next three days.

See, overindulged celebrities really are just like you and me!

What better foil for these two litigants than Judge Seitz?

Please please please take this one to trial.