Muni Long has prevailed in a dispute over the privacy of medical records tied to her March 2024 admission to Cleveland Clinic Indian River Behavioral Health Center. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn granted protection for treatment-related information sought by Ebony Son Entertainment, the former management company run by Chaka Zulu and Jeff Dixon.

The ruling does not resolve the broader business dispute between the singer, whose legal name is Priscilla Renea Hamilton, and Ebony Son. It does, however, establish an important limit on discovery in that case: Ebony Son cannot obtain her admission, diagnosis or treatment information from the clinic, and cannot use questioning of Long to get around the protection attached to those records.

At the same time, the order leaves a narrower area open for inquiry. Ebony Son may seek non-medical information from Long about the circumstances surrounding her admission, provided questioning does not reveal information covered by the patient-doctor or psychotherapist privilege.

What Judge Netburn’s order does — and does not — decide

The issue before the court was not whether the competing accounts of the events were true. Nor was it a ruling on whether Ebony Son is owed management fees. The immediate question was whether the company could demand confidential records from Long’s behavioral-health stay and obtain treatment details directly from her in litigation.

Judge Netburn said no as to protected medical information. In the five-page order, she wrote that Long’s earlier counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress had initially placed her mental health at issue and would have waived privilege. But Long withdrew that claim before releasing any records. On that basis, Netburn found that the privilege had been reinstated.

“Hamilton’s initial counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress put her mental health at issue and, thus, would have waived her privilege,” Netburn wrote. “But Hamilton never released her records before she withdrew the counterclaim, and therefore her privilege was reinstated.”

In practical terms, the distinction matters. A claim alleging emotional distress can potentially make mental-health evidence relevant to a lawsuit. But Judge Netburn’s order found that Long’s withdrawal of that particular claim, before disclosure, restored her ability to keep the confidential records outside the case.

The court directed Ebony Son to provide the order to the clinic and instruct it to disregard the demand for Long’s records. That is a concrete restriction on the company’s attempt to access documents concerning the 2024 admission, diagnosis and treatment.

The dispute behind the records request

The fight over the records emerged from a sharply contested account involving Long and her former managers. Representatives for Long alleged that the managers took her phone and attempted to have her committed against her will while she was experiencing a lupus flare-up. Ebony Son denied that account and filed suit, contending that the statement was false and harmed the company’s reputation.

Those are allegations and denials within an ongoing legal conflict, not findings made by Judge Netburn in the records order. The ruling addresses what information may be obtained in litigation; it does not determine the truth of the alleged events.

That separation is essential to reading the decision accurately. Ebony Son argued that clinical records were the strongest evidence of what happened. Netburn rejected the contention that the company’s own lawsuit opened the door to Long’s protected treatment information. The result preserves a boundary between the circumstances of an admission and the confidential details of a person’s care once admitted.

The court nevertheless found that some questions could be relevant without crossing into protected territory. Its order permits inquiry about the alleged defamatory statement and the circumstances of Long’s admission only to the degree that doing so does not pierce privilege.

“Plaintiff may, however, seek non-medical information from Hamilton regarding the alleged defamatory statement and the circumstances surrounding her admission to the Clinic, to the extent it would not pierce her privilege,” Netburn wrote.

Privilege is the central concept here. As used in the order, the patient-doctor/psychotherapist privilege protects certain communications and records connected to medical or mental-health treatment from forced disclosure in court. The privilege is not simply a broad label for every fact related to a medical facility. Judge Netburn’s decision draws a line between protected treatment information and non-treatment facts that might be discussed without exposing confidential care.

Waiver is the other key term. In this context, it refers to a party losing the right to keep certain privileged material confidential because that party puts the protected subject directly at issue in a legal claim. Long’s prior emotional-distress counterclaim was significant for precisely that reason. Netburn wrote that it would have waived privilege, but held that withdrawal of the claim before any release of records reinstated the protection.

Discovery is the litigation process through which parties seek information and documents for a case. Ebony Son’s request to the clinic was an attempt to obtain records through that process. Long’s successful request for protection means discovery can continue on permitted, non-medical subjects, but not through disclosure of her protected diagnosis or treatment details.

The ruling is therefore narrow but meaningful. It does not make the entire episode off-limits. It says the lawsuit cannot become a route to confidential clinical information merely because the parties disagree about the events connected to an admission.

The separate management-fee case continues

The underlying federal case began as a dispute over management compensation. Ebony Son’s original lawsuit sought more than $612,000, including $458,600 in commissions and more than $153,000 in expenses.

Ebony Son contends that Long agreed to pay 20% of gross revenue from work that the company helped obtain or support. The company alleges that payments stopped after October 2024 even though she continued receiving income from those opportunities.

Long disputes that she owes the claimed debt and has said there was no formal contract. In an earlier response, she characterized the relationship as a trial management arrangement. Her position was that discussions involved paying 20% of net revenue only for opportunities brought to her by the managers.

That contrast is substantial. “Gross revenue” generally describes money earned before expenses, while “net revenue” refers to an amount after applicable costs or deductions. The dispute described in the filings is not merely about the percentage; it also concerns what income base the percentage would apply to and whether an enforceable agreement existed at all.

The medical-records ruling does not decide either side’s account of that management arrangement. It also does not award the commissions or expenses Ebony Son seeks. Its effect is procedural: it governs the evidence the company may pursue as the case moves forward.

Why the limited questioning allowance matters

The court’s refusal to authorize medical disclosure is not the same as a blanket prohibition on all questions about the admission. Netburn explicitly allowed a carefully defined category of inquiry: non-treatment-related information about the circumstances surrounding it, so long as privilege is not breached.

For the parties, that distinction means the factual dispute can still be explored without requiring Long to reveal what she discussed with clinicians, what diagnosis she received, or what treatment was provided. It gives Ebony Son a path to seek information relevant to its defamation allegations while preserving the confidential core of her medical care.

For public readers, it is also a reminder that a court order restricting records should not be mistaken for a judgment on the underlying accusations. The court has protected confidential health information and defined the permitted scope of questioning. The allegations concerning the former managers, Ebony Son’s denial, the claimed reputational harm, and the commission dispute remain matters for the broader litigation rather than conclusions established by this order.

The case sits at the intersection of an entertainment-business disagreement, a defamation claim and the highly personal stakes of confidential behavioral-health records. Judge Netburn’s ruling addresses that intersection by separating information that may be relevant to the dispute from material the court says remains privileged.

For more entertainment-business context, read BroRilla’s comments on family money pressure after success.