Plaintiff Suing Sean Combs / P. Diddy and Shawn Carter / Jay-Z Can Proceed Pseudonymously

This further adds to the split among Manhattan federal judges as to pseudonymity in the various Doe v. Combs cases.

From today's order by Judge Analisa Torres (S.D.N.Y.) in Doe v. Combs:

On December 8, 2024, Plaintiff amended her complaint [in which she had originally sued Sean Combs] to add Shawn Carter, known professionally as Jay-Z, as a Defendant…. Carter's counsel appeared and moved to deny her motion …. The next day, Carter's attorney filed a letter containing a declaration from an associate at his law firm recounting a phone conversation she had with an unnamed woman who claimed that Plaintiffs counsel encouraged her to lie about her experience of sexual assault. Carter's lawyer asked the Court consider this additional info1mation in connection with Plaintiffs motion to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff's counsel denied Carter's allegations against him.

On December 13, 2024, Carter's attorney filed an additional letter alerting the Court to a recently published interview of Plaintiff on NBC News. In the interview, Plaintiff, speaking anonymously, explained her allegations against Defendants and her reasons for coming forward now. Carter's lawyer points to the interview—in which Plaintiff admitted to inconsistencies in her story—as evidence that Plaintiff's claims have "no factual basis whatsoever." …

In deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously, courts balance "the plaintiff's interest in anonymity" against "both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant." … Here, the weight of the factors tips in favor of allowing Plaintiff to remain anonymous, at least for this stage of the litigation….

In her amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants drugged and raped her when she was only thirteen. Courts in this District have recognized that allegations concerning sexual assault are "highly sensitive" and "of an extremely personal nature." Plaintiff is "particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure": according to her amended complaint, she continues to experience depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a seizure disorder associated with the stress of her sexual assault. Moreover, Plaintiff's counsel asserts that many of his other clients who have filed similar lawsuits against Sean Combs claim to have been threatened by Mr. Combs for their decision to speak out. And finally, although Plaintiff sat for an interview with NBC News concerning her case, NBC allowed her to conduct the interview anonymously.

Granted, several factors weigh against allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously.

Plaintiff is challenging the actions of private parties, not the government, and given the media attention surrounding this case, the public has a substantial interest in this litigation separate and apart from its general interest in an accused "being able to publicly confront an accuser." Doe v. Combs (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2024) (a case brought by a different Doe, in which Judge Jessica Clarke held that the plaintiff couldn't proceed pseudonymously past the motion for judgment on the pleadings stage). Alternative mechanisms may exist to protect confidentiality, namely, the redaction and sealing of documents. Most importantly, Plaintiff's continued anonymity may cause prejudice to Defendants, making it more difficult for them to collect the facts necessary to mount a defense and, as appropriate, challenge Plaintiff's credibility. Combs (identifying the "most significant form of prejudice to Defendants" as "the discovery disadvantage that Plaintiff's anonymity would present"). The Court does not take such prejudice lightly.

Nevertheless, at this exceedingly early stage in this case, the factors counseling against disclosure outweigh those that counsel in favor. Cf. Doe v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (requiring the plaintiff to identify herself as the case approached trial). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is GRANTED. Plaintiff is advised that, because the balance of these factors will certainly shift as this case proceeds, especially if and when the parties engage in discovery in earnest, the Court intends to revisit this decision at a future date….

For more on how different judges have reached sharply different decisions as to pseudonymity in the various Doe v. Combs cases, see this post.

Comments

[Drewski]

Interesting that the judge explicitly reserved the ability to pull back the veil at a later date. I haven't seen that one before. It makes a lot of sense to weigh things more heavily toward public disclosure as they proceed.

[Eugene Volokh]

When judges grant pseudonymity, they often expressly note that this may change if the case comes to trial; pseudonymity at trial creates even more problems than does pre-trial pseudonymity. Of course, most cases never make it to trial, so many plaintiffs get a good deal of benefit from pretrial pseudonymity (whether or not one thinks that such pseudonymity is fair to defendants or to the public).

[barkertiedemannson]

In a significant legal decision, the plaintiff suing Sean Combs (P. Diddy) and Shawn Carter (Jay-Z) has been granted permission to proceed pseudonymously, allowing them to protect their identity throughout the legal process. This move is often seen in sensitive cases to shield individuals from potential harm or public exposure. Much like how TBG95 Unblocked (https://1ststudio.net/blog/tbg95-unblocked/) allows users to access content safely and privately, this ruling ensures that the plaintiff can pursue their case without revealing personal details that could lead to unwanted consequences.