A judge is being asked to maintain a hold on discovery in a hip-hop artist’s defamation case against A$AP Rocky and the rapper’s attorney.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Randolph M. Hammock’s current stay, issued in January, will come up for reconsideration on July 28. The hold has stopped the plaintiff, Terell Ephron, from moving forward with the part of the case against the lawyer, Joseph Tacopina.
“Due to the pendency of the Tacopina appeal, Mr. Tacopina and Tacopina Seigel & DeOreo respectfully request that the court leave the current stay in place pending its resolution by the Second (District Court of Appeal),” Tacopina’s attorneys state in their court papers.
In February 2025, A$AP Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, was found not guilty by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, along with allegations that he personally used a firearm during the pair of confrontations with plaintiff Terell Ephron on the evening of Nov. 6, 2021.
Ephron is also known as A$AP Relli. The singer sued Mayers, now 37, and Mayers’ attorney, Tacopina, in September 2023, alleging that they falsely portrayed him in the media as a liar, a money grabber and a blackmailer. He also filed suit against Mayers in August 2022 stemming from the alleged shooting. Both civil cases are in Los Angeles Superior Court and Tacopina sought to be removed as a defendant in the one case via an anti-SLAPP motion that cited the litigation privilege.
But in his October ruling, Hammock rejected the litigation privilege argument in Tacopina’s anti-SLAPP motion and said the attorney will remain a defendant in the case. Tacopina filed a notice of appeal in December. The appeal will be heard by a three-justice panel of the Second District Court of Appeal once briefing is concluded.
The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights. Tacopina maintained that the comments he made were privileged.
“The general public was incredibly interested in the allegations against Mr. Mayers and his opinion regarding their validity, or lack thereof,” Tacopina’s attorneys argued in their anti-SLAPP court papers. “The interviews and statements given by Mr. Tacopina on behalf of Mr. Mayers, and himself, absolutely fall under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute.”
But in their court papers, Ephron’s attorneys argued the litigation privilege was not available as a defense to Tacopina.
“As a matter of black letter law established for decades through multiple binding appellate rulings, the litigation privilege does not apply to statements made by attorneys outside of court to the press,” the plaintiff’s lawyers contended.