Rape victim must reveal identity to accuse Diddy!

A judge has ruled that a woman who anonymously sued Sean “Diddy” Combs for rape must reveal her identity or her lawsuit will be dismissed. The complaint, filed as “Jane Doe” in the Southern District of New York, alleges that Combs raped her in 2004 at a Manhattan hotel when she was a 19-year-old college student.

Reveal identity to support claims

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil stated that, despite the sensitive nature of the case and potential public scrutiny, Doe’s desire to remain anonymous does not outweigh the rights of Combs and the public interest in transparent judicial proceedings. Vyskocil noted that the woman’s lawyers did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of potential harm from being publicly named.

The judge highlighted that while the complaint referenced a past threat to Doe’s life by Combs, there has been no contact between them since the alleged incident, and Combs is currently detained. Vyskocil emphasized that Doe’s legal team failed to demonstrate that revealing her identity would lead to significant mental harm, stating that “public humiliation” alone is insufficient.

The importance of fairness in defending himself

Additionally, Vyskocil pointed out the importance of fairness for Combs in defending himself, particularly given the age of the allegations. She insisted that defendants have the right to investigate claims against them and that the public has the right to know who is using the courts.

The judge has given Jane Doe until November 13 to file her complaint under her own name; otherwise, her case will be dismissed. Attorney Tony Buzbee filed the lawsuit under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, which allows victims to bring older claims until March 2025. This case is one of six anonymous lawsuits Buzbee filed in the Southern District of New York on October 14 against Combs and several of his businesses, including Bad Boy Records LLC, as well as Marriott International. Buzbee declined to comment on the court’s ruling.