()
USA Today [McLean VA]
January 15, 2025
By Anna Kaufman
How important is anonymity in a case involving sexual abuse? That question stands at the center of a debate roiling the legal world.
Celebrity legal proceedings may sometimes seem lopsided − with a well-known, A-lister on one end and a lesser-recognized name on the other.
Sometimes, the other side has no name at all. Opting instead for the common pseudonyms Jane or John Doe, anonymous accusers can further intensify that dynamic and are at the center of some of the largest legal stories of the past year. Unnamed plaintiffs have come forward to accuse several stars including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Garth Brooks, Jay-Z and Diplo of sexual abuse and harassment.
Entrenched in these cases is a sinister narrative about the alleged misuse of power to propagate sexual violence. But on the sidelines, a notable legal debate is unfurling about anonymity − both its virtues and its dangers.
In the shadow of the #MeToo movement, while many have become more sensitive in dealing with matters of sexual violence, the leeway around an alleged victim’s identity only stretches so far in court.
Defense attorneys often argue anonymous accusations leave room for extortion, while the plaintiff side traditionally asserts that using a pseudonym protects victims from potential harassment, especially in the digital age. Experts say it’s complicated.
How the Diplo, Jay-Z cases differ
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled on Dec. 31 that an accuser alleging music producer Diplo shared “revenge porn” videos of her on Snapchat cannot remain anonymous if she wants to continue pursuing a civil suit.
“The court appreciates that plaintiff’s allegations in her complaint are sensitive and of a highly personal nature, and that she may face some public scrutiny,” Judge Mónica Almadani wrote in the decision, obtained by USA TODAY. “However, absent a demonstrated need for anonymity, there is a prevailing public interest in open judicial proceedings.”
The ruling comes as both Diddy and Jay-Z’s legal teams have insisted their accusers should be forced to come forward with their identities. The list of alleged victims in the Diddy cases is long, with many opting not to reveal their names, while Jay-Z faces only one accuser, who remains unnamed but has spoken to media anonymously.
The judge in the Jay-Z case, which also names Combs, ruled on Dec. 26 that the accuser — who alleges she was assaulted by both rappers in 2000 — can remain anonymous for now.
Her ruling followed an argument from Jay-Z’s legal team that the plaintiff should be forced to reveal herself.
“Mr. Carter deserves to know the identity of the person who is effectively accusing him — in sensationalized, publicity-hunting fashion — of criminal conduct, demanding massive financial compensation, and tarnishing a reputation earned over decades,” lawyers for Jay-Z, whose legal name is Sean Carter, wrote in a Dec. 9 filing.
Ann Olivarius, a plaintiff’s lawyer, says traditionally defendants know their accuser’s identity but it is not made public.
The most recent case against Combs, a lawsuit filed Jan. 7, features another anonymous accuser: a woman who claims the rapper assaulted her in 2000 at age 16.
The accuser’s lawyer, Michael Rubin, wrote in his own filing, “(Doe) has expressed her desire to keep her identity concealed from the public to protect her privacy and to insulate her from social stigmatization.” He affirmed, however, that Jane Doe’s identity would be confidentially disclosed to Combs and other defendants.
How anonymity became a hot-button debate in Diddy lawsuits and beyond
For lesser-known defendants, anonymity can still prove important, the plaintiff side argues, given the public shame that can come from revealing one has been assaulted.
“The reason the defense wants the victims to be identified is they think, and rightfully so, that that will discourage victims from coming forward,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani tells USA TODAY.
“They’ve been victimized, (and) now they have to relive this trauma in a very public way,” says Rahmani, president of personal injury law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers. “These cases draw a lot of attention. People on social media will call them liars. They’ll say that this is just a money grab, that they’re just seeking fame.”
Rahmani says he often has clients who are ready to sue but don’t want the wider world to know that they have been abused. “Absent that shield and anonymity, there are certain victims that will not go forward,” he says.
The accused, on the other hand, will sometimes view pre-trial actions on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs as a “shakedown,” Rahmani explains. In the case of Jay-Z, the billionaire has come out swinging against attorney Tony Buzbee, branding him an ambulance chaser and calling him a 1-800 lawyer. Buzbee has encouraged potential clients to contact him through a hotline.
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs accusedin new lawsuit of sexually assaulting 16-year-old girl in 2000
In a similar case, Brooks preemptively sued his accuser, alleging the woman − who claims the country star raped her in 2019 − was committing blackmail. After Jane Roe (a variation of Doe) sued Brooks in October, his legal team named her in legal documents that same month.
The accuser’s legal team then chastised Brooks. “In revealing our client’s name, Brooks exhibits precisely the type of retaliatory and abusive behavior that compels sexual assault victims to remain silent,” a representative from Roe’s team said in an Oct. 9 email to The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network.
Brooks’ legal team argued the accuser did not allow the singer to remain anonymous so the same favor was not due.
Garth Brooks wants to move hissexual assault case to federal court. How that could help the singer.
The burden of proof is on the victims to show there is a potential for retaliation, however.
Amadani’s decision leaned into the importance of an open trial for the American judicial system and said the unnamed accuser “does not present evidence demonstrating a fear of retaliation resulting from disclosure of her identity or that said fear is reasonable.”
Criminal vs. civil cases have different outcomes
So why are judges coming down differently on the same issue?
The distinction between civil and criminal cases plays a large role. In criminal cases, anonymity is much more common.
“One of the key differences is that victims are not parties in criminal cases,” Rahmani explains, citing the federal cases against Combs or the California state case against embattled movie producer Harvey Weinstein. “The same rules don’t apply … in a civil lawsuit. Once you’re suing, you are the party,” he says.
So why don’t all accusers file a criminal case? It depends, but many times the statute of limitations has run out. Rahmani says several states have attempted to pry open those time limits to no avail. In California, for example, after a new criminal statute of limitations for sex-related child abuse was passed, an appeals court ultimately struck it down in Stogner v. California, deciding that allowing for retroactive prosecutions would violate constitutional provisions.
Civil suits are a whole other story, however, and recent years have proved a boon for accusers hoping to hold their abusers accountable for alleged crimes committed in the past.
“For civil lawsuits, you can open this window because it’s just about money,” Rahmani says. “That’s why you see all these victims in the Diddy case, all filing in New York State and now New York City because they opened the window.”
He’s referring to a one-time lookback window opened at both the city and state levels for victims to pursue civil litigation after the overarching law was changed to accommodate victims moving forward. It was through those windows that both Cassie Ventura and E. Jean Caroll filed their suits against Combs and President-elect Donald Trump, respectively.
Legal patchwork explains discrepancies in Diplo, Diddy, Jay-Z anonymous accuser cases
While different states are providing these windows, or stretching the statute of limitations further for future victims, the current legal landscape forms a sort of patchwork across the nation.
“The judge has to weigh different factors like the sensitivity of the claims, the risk of harm to the victim, the public interest in disclosure, the defendant’s ability to defend this,” Rahmani says. “It’s this balancing test, where there’s no automatic rule in the federal system that allows you to proceed anonymously.”
“I think the simplest answer is that the plaintiffs in these two cases are exposed to different risks,” Olivarius wrote in an email to USA TODAY regarding the discrepancies in the Diddy and Jay-Z case versus the one involving Diplo.
Generally, the “balancing test” applied puts interest in a public trial on one end of the scale and risk to the accuser on the other.
In that exercise, Amadani did not find that Diplo’s accuser had demonstrated “particular vulnerability to retaliation.”
Olivarius points to another factor in the Diddy/Jay-Z joint case that alarms her to possible retaliation: the Roc-Nation founder’s ongoing legal feud with Buzbee.
Buzbee has been met with an “unusual degree of hostility,” Olivarius wrote. “If Jay-Z and his attorneys think they can intimidate him into dropping the suit, imagine what impact these same tactics might have on a young woman who alleges she was raped as a child,” she argued.
Where will this all shake out?
Rahmani has been on both sides of the arguments. Now on the plaintiff’s side, he once defended the Catholic Church in a wave of sex abuse cases.
His forecast is that the law is moving towards the victims.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing the laws change when it comes to anonymity, to allow for a more uniform standard,” he says.
Contributing: Edward Segarra, USA TODAY; Audrey Gibbs, Evan Mealins, The Nashville Tennessean