“The record shows booking agency defendants participated in a conspiracy to deny plaintiffs business opportunities and contracts to promote major black and white acts. Exact records (and other smoking guns) are rare when improper conspiratorial activity takes place. In this case, however, the plaintiffs’ record sufficiently proves not only the existence of the conspiracy, but the effect — limited and rare participation for the black plaintiffs in promoting black superstar artists represented by booking agency defendants and virtually no participation in promoting white artists. The sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ record and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn from it require denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In this case, however, the plaintiffs’ record sufficiently proves not only the existence of the conspiracy, but the effect — limited and rare participation for the black plaintiffs in promoting black superstar artists represented by booking agency defendants and virtually no participation in promoting white artists. The sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ record and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn from it require denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” — Bill Campbell of the Willie Gary Firm, Opposition to Def. Motion for Summary Judgment, April 24, 2003.

Consistent with allegations in the Amended Complaint, the record now establishes:

(i) There is direct evidence of booking agency defendants’ conspiracy in concert with other defendants;

(ii) The conspiracy by booking agency defendants, inter alia, was motivated by racial animus and resulted in the restraint of fair trade and competition. The booking agency defendants did not produce a single contract where any black promoter was awarded a contract to promote any artist on the same terms and basis as white promoters.

(iii) Neither Fred Jones nor any other black promoter nor plaintiff has been the sole or lead promoter with a contract for a white artist. In any case where a black promoter “worked on” such a concert, it was in spite of, not because of, booking agency defendants.

(iv) Plaintiffs are known to defendants. Moreover, the record includes sworn statements of defendants and others confirming plaintiffs to be “qualified” promoters who have promoted national tours, including famed Jackson 5 member, Marlon Jackson, who said plaintiff Rowe was one of the best promoters in the industry.

(v) Thousands of contracts evidence racially disparate treatment of plaintiffs by booking agency defendants: not informing plaintiffs of touring dates; misleading plaintiffs with respect to availability of artists; routinely quoting higher deposit amounts and, incredibly, accepting lower bid prices for their clients’ tours from white promoters than what was offered by plaintiffs; all in violation of discrimination and antitrust laws;

(vi) In a shocking and brazen display of defendants’ concerted action, the first opportunity for an African-American to control promotions at a major market venue (Memphis’s Mud Island) was crushed by booking agency defendants together with others in violation of discrimination and antitrust laws;

(vii) Booking agencies select promoters. The only artists to testify in this case, Bill Cosby and Marlon Jackson, conclusively destroy any contrary fiction proffered by defendants.

(viii) Non-party black promoters, Alan Haymon and Bill Washington, often cited by booking agency defendants, directly accuse them of discriminatory and racist business practices.

While plaintiffs need not prove their case here, a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, now exists which undergirds the central allegations of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The record is inundated with facts that demonstrate violations of federal discrimination and antitrust law. Thus confronted, defendants resort to legal sophistry: attacking spurious issues that are incidental to their illegal conduct. The Court should not allow defendants’ strategy to substitute for evidence or their motion for trial. The genuine issues of material fact in dispute require denial of defendants’ motion.

Leave a comment