A woman who has accused Sean “Diddy” Combs of rape cannot proceed with her lawsuit under a “Jane Doe” pseudonym, a Manhattan federal judge says – a ruling that could potentially impact the many other cases filed against him by anonymous accusers.
via: CNN
“The fundamental question is whether Plaintiff has a ‘substantial privacy’ interest that ‘outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,” Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote in an opinion Wednesday, adding, “Defendants have a right to defend themselves, including by investigating Plaintiff, and the people have a right to know who is using their courts.”
The Tennessee woman filed a lawsuit as a Jane Doe against Combs and others earlier this month, alleging he raped her in 2004 when she was 19 years old.
The Doe lawsuit is one of more than a dozen filed since Combs’ arrest on sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges in September by John or Jane Does who are represented by the same attorneys. The cases are individually filed and before different judges, but the ruling could impact a number of those cases.
Judge Vyskocil ruled the woman has to file the lawsuit under her name by November 13 or the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Representatives for Combs said, “We have no formal statement as the ruling speaks for itself.”
Combs has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied any wrongdoing.
CNN has reached out to representatives for the plaintiff for comment.
Lawyers for the woman argued in court filings that the case should be allowed to proceed because of the woman’s fear that Combs would physically harm her.
The judge disagreed.
“As Plaintiff’s own submissions make clear, however, Combs has had no contact with Plaintiff for the approximately twenty years since the alleged rape and Combs is currently detained pending trial,” the judge wrote. “As such, counsel has not identified any present threat of physical harm to Plaintiff,” she said. In the lawsuit, the judge notes there is no allegation that Combs threatened this woman about going public with her allegations.
The judge ruled that “public humiliation” is not enough to warrant keeping the identity secret and pointed to the multiple lawsuits filed against Combs by people under their real names.
“The Court appreciates that Combs is a public figure and, therefore, Plaintiff is likely to face public scrutiny if she proceeds in her own name. The Court is not oblivious to the potential toll of such scrutiny on any litigant. However, Plaintiff’s interest in avoiding public scrutiny, or even embarrassment, does not outweigh the interests of both Combs and the public in ‘the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,’” the judge wrote.
The judge said that Combs is entitled to know her identity to investigate her claims.
“Counsel’s assertions that Defendants need not know Plaintiff’s identity to file an answer and conduct discovery strain credulity,” she wrote.
Comments