In a recent ruling, a federal judge mandated that the woman suing Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault and sex trafficking must reveal her identity as the case progresses.
The judge, Jessica G. L. Clarke, acknowledged the potential impact on the accuser, stating that revealing her identity “could have a significant impact on her,” given the nature of the allegations. However, the judge emphasized that the accuser failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify remaining anonymous throughout the legal proceedings.
“While the court does not take plaintiff’s concerns lightly, the Court cannot rely on generalized, uncorroborated claims that disclosure would harm plaintiff to justify her anonymity,” Judge Clarke asserted.
Drawing parallels to previous high-profile cases involving Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein, where anonymity requests were denied, the judge underscored that allowing cases to proceed under pseudonyms is an exception rather than the norm in the U.S. court system.
The ruling will not take immediate effect, pending the judge’s decision on Diddy’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Should the case move forward, the accuser will be compelled to reveal her identity.
The lawsuit, filed late last year, alleges that Combs and former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre drugged and raped the accuser in a Manhattan recording studio when she was a high school junior. Combs vehemently denies the allegations, asserting his intention to fight for his name, family, and the truth.
Throughout the legal battle, the accuser argued that disclosing her identity would subject her to additional trauma from media attention. Conversely, Diddy’s legal team contended that it would be unjust to allow the accuser to proceed anonymously while tarnishing Combs’ reputation.
In siding with Diddy’s argument, the judge emphasized that the accuser had not demonstrated the “particularized harm or current vulnerabilities” necessary to warrant special anonymity status.
“Although this case involves highly sensitive allegations and Doe has not publicly revealed her identity, all other factors weigh against Plaintiff’s motion should this case survive Defendants’ dispositive motions,” the judge concluded.