Russell Simmons Accused of Evading Deposition

Six months ago Def Jam co-founder Russell Simmons was served at his resort in Bali with notice of a civil lawsuit filed by a Jane Doe accusing him of saxual assault while an employee at Def Jam [click here if you missed that]. 

Now Jane Doe is accusing Russell of refusing to sit for a deposition...

From The Blast

Russell Simmons still has his saxual harassment case hanging over his head.

The business mogul has been accused of evading answering questions under oath by an undisclosed former Def Jam executive who dragged him to court.

Rusell Simmons, who co-founded Def Jam Productions in 1984, has been accused of draping the plaintiff at his apartment during her time as a staff at the company.

The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, claimed she requested the 66-year-old attend a deposition via Zoom and answer a few questions under oath about the lawsuit.

Based on discussions with Simmons' attorneys, the alleged victim and her lawyer declared to the court that "it does appear the parties are at an impasse on several important issues."

She noted that she asked for the music producer and some former Def Jam employees to be deposed, but Simmons has not answered any questions that could help the case move forward.

The accuser believes a deposition would "obviate the need for his answering the interrogatories." But Simmons has not agreed to do either of the two.

The music producer denied every account of the unidentified accuser and argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred because the former Def Jam employee "released her claims against Simmons" in a 1997 agreement.

He requested that the court dismiss the case as he does not live in the United States. Simmons stated that he lives in Bali and even submitted his Balinese driver's license, proof that he sold his property in New York in 2021, and his bank account details in Bali.

His attorney also argued that he did not need a deposition "under the order for limited discovery," adding, "We believe a deposition is unduly burdensome, duplicative, and intended to harass our client."

Last week, the judge in the case ruled that the accuser's request for documents is "overbroad, burdensome, and go far beyond the limited discovery authorized." The judge, however, ordered depositions to be granted in the case.