Muni Long's Ex-Managers Can't Subpoena Her Medical Records, Judge Rules

A federal judge has blocked Muni Long's former managers from subpoenaing her medical records in their bitter defamation lawsuit, ruling that the Grammy-winning singer's doctor-patient privilege remains intact. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn's order on Thursday (Oct. 8) came after Chaka Zulu and Jeff Dixon, who managed Long through their Ebony Son Entertainment, sought access to "essentially all documents related to Hamilton's treatment" at the Cleveland Clinic Indian River Behavioral Health Center. The managers wanted the records to prove that Long's public accusations - that they involuntarily committed her to a mental health facility - were false. But the judge ruled that such records are "clearly privileged and off-limits," whether sought from the facility or from Long herself. "Plaintiff may ask Hamilton about the circumstances of her admission to the clinic but may not seek discovery of her medical records and treatment," Netburn wrote in the order obtained by Billboard. The ruling is a significant setback for Zulu and Dixon, who had argued that the medical records were "the best (and likely the only) contemporaneous evidence" to prove they didn't force Long into the facility. But Netburn was unmoved, writing that "the nature of evidentiary privileges is that they will sometimes block a party from relevant discovery." The judge also rejected the managers' argument that Long had waived her privilege by bringing her mental health into the lawsuit. While Long's initial counterclaim did put her mental health at issue and would have waived her privilege, Netburn noted that "Hamilton never released her records before she withdrew the counterclaim, and therefore her privilege was reinstated." That procedural detail is a crucial reminder for executives: withdrawing a claim that puts sensitive information at issue can restore legal protections, but only if no records were released before the withdrawal. The underlying lawsuit is a messy, high-stakes breakup between Long and the veteran music managers best known for their long partnership with Ludacris. Zulu and Dixon sued Long in October 2025, claiming she was refusing to pay more than $600,000 in commissions after firing them. They called her a "serial grifter" who had "shamelessly reneged" on her promises to pay. Long's reps fired back with a media statement claiming that Zulu and Dixon had taken her phone and "sought to have her involuntarily committed to a mental health facility," when what she really needed was treatment for a Lupus flare-up. Long then countersued in January, claiming she had "experienced excruciating pain and mental anguish" from being "forced" to remain at the Cleveland Clinic Indian River Behavioral Health Center in March 2024. She later dropped that accusation from the litigation. But last month, Zulu and Dixon added a defamation claim, calling the public allegations about involuntary commitment "outlandish" and false: "That statement is a blatant lie designed to disparage plaintiff's reputation in the music industry." The case is still in its earliest stages. Beyond defamation, Zulu and Dixon are accusing Long of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other wrongdoing over her alleged failure to pay. Long, meanwhile, is accusing the pair of breaching their fiduciary duty to a client through alleged failures in their managerial roles. For executives and boards, this ruling is a sharp reminder that doctor-patient privilege is a powerful shield, even when a party's own statements put their health at issue. The decision also highlights the strategic risk of public accusations: once a statement is made, the other side will fight hard to prove it false, and the discovery battle can become as contentious as the underlying dispute. For talent managers and entertainment executives, the case underscores the importance of airtight contracts and clear communication about commissions and termination terms. And for anyone facing litigation, the lesson is simple: think carefully before putting your health at issue in a lawsuit, because the privilege you waive may be hard to reclaim.