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.
In a decision Wednesday, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that the privacy rights of Combs’ alleged victim did not trump the right of all defendants “to defend themselves” in open court against such “heinous” allegations.
“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.
“Plaintiff has chosen to bring this lawsuit, leveling serious charges against Combs and, as such, she has put her credibility in issue,” the judge added. “Combs is, therefore, entitled to investigate her background and challenge her allegations and her credibility.”
The ruling came in one of at least 15 lawsuits brought against Combs in recent weeks by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, all of which have been filed under “Doe” pseudonyms. Though Vyskocil’s ruling is not binding on other judges, it could influence how they handle the issue in Buzbee’s other cases, as well as numerous other lawsuits that have been filed anonymously against Combs.
Buzbee did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday morning.
Combs has faced a flood of abuse accusations over the past year, starting with civil lawsuits and followed by a bombshell federal indictment last month in which prosecutors allege he ran a sprawling criminal operation for years aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison.
In the current case – filed last week by one of the 120 alleged victims that Buzbee claims to represent – the accuser alleges that Comb raped her and threatened her life in 2004 when she was 19 years old.
The case was filed under the Jane Doe pseudonym without prior approval from the judge — a common tactic in such lawsuits but one that Vyskocil ruled Wednesday was technically a violation of federal litigation rules.
In her decision, the judge said anonymous lawsuits are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule – both because American court cases are supposed to be open to the public, and because accused defendants have a right to know who is accusing them of wrongdoing.
Buzbee had argued that abuse accusers can face backlash after filing such cases, and that other accusers might be scared away from speaking out if forced to reveal their identities. Though Vyskocil acknowledged the “toll” that such public scrutiny can take, she repeatedly pointed to the “fundamental unfairness” of allowing only one side to remain anonymous.
“Plaintiff, who is an adult, has now decided to file a lawsuit in which she accuses a famous person of engaging in heinous conduct approximately twenty years ago and, further, accuses a number of businesses of complicity in that alleged conduct,” the judge wrote. “Defendants have a right to defend themselves, including by investigating Plaintiff, and the people have a right to know who is using their courts.”
