Smokey Robinson Says Rape Accusers Want to Cut His Touring Profits for Settlement Leverage
The Motown singer says his former housekeepers’ strategy is to “let the lawsuit linger publicly” until he gives in to an extortionate $100 million settlement demand.
Smokey Robinson claims in a new court filing that the former housekeepers suing him for rape are trying to slow-walk the lawsuit to gain maximum leverage for an extortionate settlement payout, including by dealing a financial blow to the Motown legend’s ongoing tour.
Lawyers for the 85-year-old singer made this argument in a Thursday (June 12) motion to require the deposition of one of the four anonymous former housekeepers who allege he forced them to have sex at his Los Angeles-area home dozens of times over nearly two decades. Robinson adamantly denies the claims and has countersued the women for extortion, defamation and elder abuse.
Robinson’s attorney, Christopher Frost, says in the new court filing that the housekeepers are refusing to participate in evidence collection. He claims that the women’s lawyer, John Harris, allegedly informed him that he wants to delay all discovery until they’ve litigated a motion to strike Robinson’s counterclaims, a lengthy process that could take months.
Frost claims the housekeepers, who he says demanded $100 million from Robinson and his wife Frances before suing them both in May, are doing so as a tactic to maximize settlement leverage. According to the motion, this strategy is aimed at cutting into profits from Robinson’s ongoing international tour celebrating the 50th anniversary of his album A Quiet Storm.
“Plaintiffs have effectively conceded that their intention was to file a salacious lawsuit, do nothing to prosecute it, neuter the Robinsons’ ability to defend themselves, and let the lawsuit linger publicly while the Robinsons have to live every day under the unfair specter of public opinion and while Mr. Robinson’s tour is negatively affected,” Frost writes.
“This plays into plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ strategy to exact leverage on Mr. and Ms. Robinson,” Frost adds. “The longer Mr. Robinson’s livelihood is harmed, the more pressure there is for the Robinsons to give in to plaintiffs’ and cross-defendants’ extortionate demands.”
Related
Frost is asking for a court order requiring one of the four housekeepers, identified in court filings as “Jane Doe 2,” to sit for a deposition at his Los Angeles law office within two weeks of the motion being heard. Frost says the women should also foot the bill for nearly $5,000 in legal fees the Robinsons have run up bringing this motion.
“If plaintiffs and cross-defendants are not sanctioned for their abusive behavior, they will expect that they can continue this behavior during the pendency of this case, which will only create more delays and more motion practice,” writes Frost. “The utilization of this strategy must be nipped in the bud.”
The housekeepers’ lawyers released a statement on Friday (June 13) calling Robinson’s motion to compel a “calculated effort to misuse the discovery process in a manner that is both retaliatory and chilling.”
“By singling out Jane Doe 2 for a compelled deposition at this early stage, the defendant is engaging in a broader strategy of harassment and coercion — an attempt to retraumatize a survivor of sexual violence under the guise of lawful process,” said attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden. “This motion is not about truth-seeking; it is about exerting power. It should be recognized for what it is: a transparent attempt to chill participation in this case and deter other survivors from coming forward. We remain steadfast in defending her rights and will hold the Robinsons accountable for any effort to subvert those rights through abusive and vexatious litigation tactics.”
In addition to the civil lawsuit, the former Robinson housekeepers have also filed a police report against the singer. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is now investigating the women’s sexual assault claims.
This story was updated on June 13 at 11:22 p.m. ET to add a statement from the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
What's Your Reaction?
