Sean “Diddy” Combs case: What the Jane Doe ruling could mean for other cases already pending

CNN
—

Judges have rejected Efforts by two Jane Does to anonymously file sexual assault claims against Sean “Diddy” Combs in rulings that highlight the problems of using pseudonyms and that some plaintiffs’ attorneys say could have a chilling effect on future actions.

Two federal judges overseeing the lawsuits brought by Jane Dawes against Combs rejected their attempts to proceed anonymously, saying that in both cases the women had not proven that their fears of harm outweighed Combs’ right to know his accuser and to defend himself or the public interest in public trials. . If the women want their lawsuits to proceed, judges ruled, they will have to file them under their real names.

“This almost certainly means that fewer plaintiffs will be willing to come forward, including those with the most traumatic experiences. It’s the survivors who are usually most concerned about being identified, for obvious reasons,” said Roberta Kaplan, the attorney who represented E. Jean Carroll in her case. sexual assault lawsuit against Donald Trump.

Lawyers say anonymity is being discussed with clients who may not realize at the outset that they may eventually have to reveal their names in court and open themselves to public scrutiny, which has led to the dismissal of some cases.

But that’s not always a deterrent: Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura has filed a lawsuit accusing Combs of abuse in November last year. the case was settled the next day, and over the past year, about a dozen more have followed suit, filing lawsuits in their own names.

In addition, laws such as the New York law Adult Survivors Actwhich gave alleged victims the opportunity to file claims in court, sparked numerous cases, and also changed the perception of sexual violence that followed #MeToo movement.

“I don’t think it should have a chilling effect because if there is a compelling reason to operate under a pseudonym, then they will satisfy one of those factors,” said Imran Ansari, a lawyer representing the disgraced Hollywood producer. Harvey Weinstein in numerous civil suits.

Judges weigh John or Jane Doe’s rights to privacy against the constitutional presumption of open court and the defendant’s right to a defense. Court decisions over the years have established a number of factors that they take into account.

Lawyers say that when cases involve minors, courts often grant them anonymity. This is also usually allowed when John or Jane Doe can prove through medical records that they will be harmed. However, public control alone is often not enough.

New York State Judge This Week scheduled hearings consider whether to allow multiple John Doe lawsuits against Combs to be conducted anonymously. In one case, Dow asserts he was 17 years old when he was forced to have sex with Combs during auditions for the MTV competition series Making the Band. In another case, Doe claims he was 10 years old when he was attacked during an “audition” with Combs. Combs denied the allegations in both lawsuits in a statement to CNN.

But the bar remains high.

In February, Judge Jessica Clark rejected the request of a woman who alleged she was gang-raped by Combs and others when she was 17, writing: “The court has been unable to find a case in this district—and the plaintiff can point to none— with similar allegations, in which the plaintiff’s opposing motion to act anonymously was granted.”

“If a plaintiff alleges that disclosure would harm that person’s mental health, courts in this district seek certification from medical professionals who detail the risk to the plaintiff. Here, Doe failed to identify any specific harm that disclosure of her identity would cause. “She states only in general terms and without any evidence that she would be harmed if her identity were revealed and she became the center of media attention,” Clarke wrote.

Doe’s attorney could not be reached Thursday.

“To support the request, the plaintiff would like to have a corroborating psychiatric report stating that publication of the plaintiff’s name would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff,” said Mitchell Garabedian, an attorney who has filed dozens of clergy abuse lawsuits. Without anonymity, he said: “It can have a chilling effect because the psychological damage done to the victim is permanent. The victim will feel as if they have been victimized again, to the point where they cannot bear to have their name made public.”

Most recent solutionThe affidavit handed down Wednesday by Judge Mary Kay Vyskol involved a Tennessee woman who alleged Combs raped her in 2004 when she was 19 years old.

The judge rejected Doe’s bid to remain anonymous, stating, “Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish that she is entitled to the exclusive remedy of anonymity,” while finding that “Defendants have the right to defend themselves, including by investigating Plaintiff , and people have a right to know who is using their vessels.”

Tony Buzbee, who represents more than a dozen Combs accusers, including this Doe, told CNN: “We have great respect for the court and its decisions. Our job as advocates for these victims is to protect their safety as much as possible, and that is what we have tried to do by filing cases anonymously. Anonymous or not, the case will continue, period.”

The same judge in 2020 blocked an anonymous review of a sexual assault lawsuit against Weinstein.

Jane Doe sued Weinstein in August 2020, alleging he raped her during the 2007 Cannes Film Festival when she was 22 years old. Weinstein’s lawyers argued that he “has the right to know his accuser.”

Judge Vyskol rejected Doe’s request to operate under a pseudonym and ordered the plaintiff to refile the lawsuit using his real name by November. Doe dropped the lawsuit. Her lawyer could not be reached for comment Thursday.