The Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Deny Independent Artist Jane Doe's Motion For Anonymity (12/8/25)
The Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Deny Independent Artist Jane Doe's Motion For Anonymity (12/8/25)Update: 2025-12-08
Description
In the case of Jane Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the defendants have submitted a memorandum opposing the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. They argue that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for anonymity, as required by the factors established in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims, while sensitive, do not involve matters that typically warrant anonymity, such as challenging governmental actions or involving minors.
They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdf
They also assert that there is no substantial risk of physical retaliation or mental harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. Furthermore, they highlight that the plaintiff's identity has not been kept confidential, pointing to prior public disclosures related to the case. The defendants emphasize that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous would prejudice their ability to defend themselves, as it hampers the investigation and gathering of evidence. They also argue that the public has a legitimate interest in open judicial proceedings, which includes knowing the identities of the parties involved. In conclusion, the defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for anonymity, asserting that the balance of factors weighs against permitting her to proceed under a pseudonym.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.54.0.pdf
Comments
In Channel
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States00:00
00:00
x
