Attorney Repping Meek Mill’s Judge Loses Leaked Audio Lawsuit Against Roc Nation and Amazon

According to legal documents obtained by the Hollywood Reporter, Amazon and Roc Nation have won their legal battle against Charles Peruto Jr., the Philadelphia-based attorney who accused the companies of violating the Wiretap Act. The case stemmed from a May 2018 interview for an upcoming Meek Mill docuseries produced by Amazon and Roc Nation. Peruto agreed to appear in the project despite representing Genece Brinkley, the judge who slapped Meek with a two- to four-year prison sentence for probation violations.

Following his on-camera interview, Peruto made some disparaging remarks about his client and the way she was handling Meek's case. Peruto's comments were caught on a hot mic, and were later published by the media. The attorney filed a lawsuit against the producers in summer 2018, claiming his statements in the leaked audio were off the record and unlawfully recorded.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Gerald McHugh ruled in Amazon and Roc Nation's favor. "This case arises out of a 'hot mic' situation where an attorney made candid and embarrassing comments about his client without realizing that he was still being recorded," McHugh wrote in his opinion. He went on to say, "Having reviewed the record, I conclude that the material facts of this are undisputed, and that Plaintiff's wiretap actions cannot survive as a matter of law. According, I grant summary judgment for Defendants."

Judge McHugh said that at no time during the recording did Peruto exhibit an expectation of privacy, as he never instructed the crew to stop recording, nor did he indicate that his comments were off the record. He also pointed out that Peruto's criticism of Brinkley was of interest to the producers, as the project addressed "a controversy in which public opinion has been hostile to his client."

"Mr. Peruto spoke freely in front of a room full of individuals, some of whom he did not know, in the presence of recording equipment. ... Peruto knew the recording devices had just been recording, yet he began disparaging his client before he even had time to fully remove his microphone," the judge wrote. "Given the controversial nature of the case he was discussing, Defendants’ interest in getting a story, and the controversial nature of his remarks, Peruto had greater reason than the officers in Agnew to be concerned that his words might be intercepted, overheard, or otherwise disclosed."