Leonardo Dicaprio has been ordered by a judge to testify in a court case brought by ex-stockbroker Andrew Greene over his alleged depiction in 2013 film The Wolf of Wall Street. Greene who was formerly an executive for Stratton Oakmont, claims the film portrays him as a “depraved” drug using criminal and it has damaged his professional reputation.

Leonardo DiCaprioLeonardo DiCaprio has been ordered to testify in Wolf of Wall Street lawsuit.

On Thursday (June 16) United States magistrate judge Steven Locke in New York granted Greene's motion to compel DiCaprio’s deposition. The defendants had argued that DiCaprio’s testimony was unnecessary as screenwriter Terence Winter and director Martin Scorsese had already testified.

More: Is Leonardo Dicaprio Dating Model Nina Agdal?

They had also questioned the plaintiffs intentions when asking for DiCaprio to testify as the actor did not write the screenplay or play the character that is meant to be based on Greene.

The defendants told Judge Locke that efforts to question him had "earmarks of the intentional infliction of burden" and Greene's lawyers wanted "to coerce an outcome that is not based upon the merits of the case."

Greene is suing producers including Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures, DiCaprio's Appian Way Productions and Sikelia Productions. He claims that the character of Nicky "Rugrat" Koskoff, who was played by P.J. Byrne was based on him, with his nickname changed from "Wigwam" to “Rugrat".

The character wore a toupee and was the subject of the movie tag line, "Swear to God, I want to choke him to death.” According to Greene the film damaged his reputation by depicting him as a "depraved" drug-fuelled criminal and he had never consented for his image, likeness and characterisation to be used.

More: Leonardo Dicaprio Criticised For Taking Private Jet To Collect Environmental Award

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Green initially claimed the film had ‘spread untruths about him and damaged his reputation to the tune of $15 million’, however a judged rejected these claims and instead allowed him to to amend the suit and assert that the filmmakers maliciously libelled him.