Ok, I am pretty sure I am going to get a lot of shit about this rant ... buttt (I regret this immediately) ... Lets talk about Kesha and why Justice Kornreich made the right call.

What we will be focusing on here today is, i̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶e̶m̶i̶n̶a̶z̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶u̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶k̶e̶y̶b̶o̶a̶r̶d̶s̶, but just hear me out for a second ok: (1) The legal viability for Kesha’s accusations; (2) basic principals of contract analysis. However, before we go into all that, I want to explain to those of you out there who are not as “lucky” as I am to have a formal legal education what actually happened on February 19th 2016.

Ke[s/$]ha was seeking a thing called a preliminary injunction, specifically pertaining to her recording contract with Sony. Now let’s explain what that means, This is defined as a temporary injunction (the legal world just LOVES including the word in its own definition) granted before the trial has started, which states that the plaintiff will suffer extensive damage in case the injunction is not granted. Security must be posted with the court in case the injunction grant turns out to be an error. Now let me break down what that means. Let’s say you sue somebody for doing [the thing], however, until the case is resolved nothing is stopping them from doing [the thing]. Well then, you have to go to the judge and say “Hey buddy as we both know litigation takes FOR FUCKING EVER and my life will be in shambles as long as this dudes allowed to do [The thing].” Then the judge, if your argument is legitimately supported, stops the person from doing [the thing] until all claims are settled. So on February 19th, NOBODY SAID THAT DR. LUKE WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF RAPE OR SEXUAL ABUISE, IT WAS NOT THE JUDGES JOB TO DECIDE IF DR. LUKE WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF SEXUAL ABUSE. It was the judges job to decide whether the evidence being provided by Kesha’s council was good enough to support an injunction of Sony’s contract PENDING THE RESULTS OF THE TRIAL. Yes, there is still a trial and yes Kesha can still fight but this is going to take a really long time and she’s more or less SOL until then … or is she.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way let me explain why the injunction was denied. More often than not in order for an injunction to be approved the seeker of it has to establish that they have evidence to support the claim on its own merits, Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 (1988), Johnson v. Burge, 506 Fed. Appx. 10, 11 (2d Cir. 2012). Now here’s the issue with what Kesha/her council presented to the courts. The alleged incident(s) of sexual abuse took place years ago, at the time of the incident no report was filed and a rape kit was not used, these are time sensitive materials that have to be used within 48 hours of the incident which occurred. Subsequently the evidence, including a deposition by Kesha herself denying a specific incident of sexual abuse (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume…/1342034-exhibit-b.html), of the cases merits is not in Kesha’s favor. I am personally not saying that Kesha made any of this up, I am not confirming or denying the fact that she was raped. Moreover, the judge at trial did not confirm or deny that Kesha was raped. The judge decided that Kesha did not meet the burden of proof in her rhetoric for a contract to be nullified without proper evidence due to the PRECEDENT that this would set.

OH MY GOD THEIR GOING TO CRUCIFY ME!!!

That last thought gives the perfect segue into contract analysis. As per her contract, Kesha is under legal obligation to produce X more albums with Sony, as of recently Sony has agreed to let her record under a different producer to fulfill the remainder of her contract. An enforceable legal contract is held to a pretty high legal standard, and any judge anywhere would be hard-pressed to nullify one purely on the grounds of “he said she said.” Justice Kornreich, who was presiding at the trial, was quoted as saying "You're asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry … my instinct is to do the commercially reasonable thing." Yes, this makes perfect sense, when analyzing a contract, it is commonplace to look at standards used by other contracts in that industry. The content of the contract appears to be normal compared to others in the industry, maybe if you are nitpicky and get lucky you could say that the amount of albums asked for is excessive but that’s about it. So maybe Kesha can argue the unconscionability, if any, of the contract on a later day, but this was not the issue at hand nor was it legally relevant to the judge’s current decision. Pretty much, I totally understand why the judge made the decision she made. It would have been legally irresponsible to undermine a contract, or to set a precedent allowing such a thing to happen without more concrete evidence.