A federal judge has ruled that a woman accusing Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter and Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual assault may remain anonymous. The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, alleges that the assault occurred at an MTV Video Music Awards after-party in 2000, when she was 13 years old.
Judge Rules in Favor of Plaintiff’s Anonymity in Jay-Z, Diddy Case
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, in a decision issued Thursday, highlighted the sensitive nature of the allegations. She acknowledged the plaintiff’s mental health struggles, including depression and PTSD, as factors in her ruling. “Plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure,” the judge stated.
Doe’s lawsuit, initially filed against Combs in October, was amended in December to include Jay-Z. Both men have denied the allegations, with Jay-Z’s legal team referring to the claims as “baseless” and a “blackmail attempt.”
Jay-Z’s attorneys recently filed motions seeking to either dismiss the case or require Doe to disclose her identity. They argued that anonymity hindered the defense’s ability to collect evidence and evaluate the plaintiff’s credibility.
“Mr. Carter deserves to know the identity of the person accusing him of such sensationalized, defamatory conduct,” his lawyers argued in a court filing.
Despite these objections, Judge Torres emphasized the early stage of the proceedings and noted that the ruling on anonymity might be revisited during discovery.
While acknowledging inconsistencies in her account, Doe has maintained her allegations, which include accusations of drugging and assault by both men. In a statement to NBC News, she admitted to errors in her recollection but affirmed the central claims of her lawsuit.
Jay-Z’s legal team continues to contest her assertions, calling them a “false complaint” designed to extort money. Meanwhile, Combs remains in custody on unrelated charges of sex trafficking.
The case, though in its initial phases, has drawn significant public attention. Judge Torres has also criticized Carter’s attorneys for their combative tactics, calling them a “waste of judicial resources.”
The court will likely revisit the question of anonymity as the case progresses. For now, Jane Doe’s identity remains protected.