Judges have rejected two Jane Does’ efforts to anonymously bring sexual assault lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs in rulings that highlight the challenges of using pseudonyms, and according to some plaintiffs’ lawyers, could have a chilling effect on future actions.
Two federal judges overseeing lawsuits brought by Jane Does against Combs rejected their efforts to continue anonymously, saying in both cases the women did not establish that their concerns about harm outweighed Combs’ right to know his accuser and defend himself or the public’s interest in open trials. If the women want their lawsuits to proceed, the judges ruled, they will have to file them under their real names.
“It almost certainly means that fewer plaintiffs will be willing to come forward, among them individuals with the most traumatic experiences. Those are the survivors who typically are the most concerned about being identified for obvious reasons,” said Roberta Kaplan, an attorney who represented E. Jean Carroll in her sexual abuse lawsuit against Donald Trump.
Lawyers say anonymity is discussed with clients, who may not realize at the outset that they might have to ultimately reveal their names in court and open themselves up to public scrutiny, which has led to some cases being dropped.
But it isn’t always a deterrent – Combs’ former girlfriend Cassie Ventura filed a lawsuit accusing Combs of abuse last November. The case was settled the next day, and over the past year nearly a dozen others followed with lawsuits they filed under their names.
In addition, laws such as New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which allowed a lookback period for alleged victims to file lawsuits, have spurred numerous cases, along with changing perceptions of sexual abuse that followed the #MeToo movement.
“I don’t think it should have a chilling effect because if there is good cause to proceed under a pseudonym, then they’re going to satisfy one of those factors,” said Imran Ansari, a lawyer who represents disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in numerous civil lawsuits.
Judges weigh the John or Jane Does’ privacy rights against the Constitution’s presumption of open courts and the defendant’s rights to defend themselves. Court decisions over the years have established a series of factors they consider.
Lawyers say when minors are involved, courts often grant them anonymity. It is also usually permitted when a John or Jane Doe can establish with medical documentation that they will suffer harm. Public scrutiny alone, however, is often not enough.
A New York state judge this week ordered hearings to consider whether to allow numerous John Doe lawsuit against Combs to proceed anonymously. In one case, the Doe alleges he was 17 years old when he was forced to engage in sex acts with Combs during auditions for the MTV competition series “Making the Band.” In another case, the Doe alleges he was 10 years old when he was assaulted during an “audition” with Combs. Combs denied allegations in both lawsuits in a statement to CNN.
But the bar remains high.
In February, Judge Jessica Clarke denied a request from a woman who alleged she was gang raped by Combs and others when she was 17, writing, “The Court could not find a case in this Circuit—and Plaintiff fails to point to one—with similar allegations where a plaintiff’s opposed motion to proceed anonymously was granted.”
“Where a plaintiff claims that disclosure will harm that person’s mental health, courts in this Circuit look for corroboration from medical professionals that detail the risk to plaintiff. Here, Doe has failed to identify any particularized harm that revealing her identity would cause. She claims only generally and without corroboration that she will suffer trauma if her identity is revealed and she becomes the focus of media attention,” Clarke wrote.
The lawyer for the Doe could not be reached for comment Thursday.
“To strengthen the request, the plaintiff would want to have a supporting psychiatric report stating the publication of the plaintiff name would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff,” said Mitchell Garabedian, an attorney who has brought dozens of lawsuits alleging abuse against clergy. Without anonymity, he said, “It can have a chilling effect because the psychological damage to a victim is everlasting. A victim will feel as though they’ve been revictimized to the point that they can’t handle their name being public.”
The most recent decision, issued Wednesday by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, involved a Tennessee woman who alleged she was raped by Combs in 2004 when she was 19.
The judge rejected the Doe’s bid to remain anonymous saying, “Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show that she is entitled to the exceptional remedy of anonymity” while finding that, “Defendants have a right to defend themselves, including by investigating Plaintiff, and the people have a right to know who is using their courts.”
Tony Buzbee, who represents more than a dozen of Combs’ accusers, including this Doe, told CNN, “We have great respect for the court and its rulings. Our job as counsel for these victims is to protect their safety the best we can, which is what we were trying to do by filing the cases anonymously. Anonymous or not, this case will proceed, period.”
The same judge in 2020 blocked a sexual assault lawsuit against Weinstein from proceeding anonymously.
A Jane Doe sued Weinstein on August 2020, alleging he raped her during the Cannes Film Festival in 2007 when she was 22. Weinstein’s lawyers argued he had the “right to know his accuser.”
Judge Vyskocil denied the Doe’s request to proceed under a pseudonym and ordered the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit using her real name by November. The Doe dropped her lawsuit. Her lawyer could not be reached for comment Thursday.
