Diddy and his team want to reveal the identity of the woman who accused him of sexual assault.
via: Radar Online
The woman who sued Diddy over an alleged sexual assault in 2003 pleaded with a New York judge to not order her to reveal her name.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the accuser, who filed her lawsuit in December 2023 using the pseudonym Jane Doe, said Diddy only wants her name out there so that he can “publicly malign her because she is the victim of a completely separate set of wrongdoings that occurred nearly two decades after the events underlying to this action.”
Doe was the third woman to come forward after Diddy settled the bombshell assault lawsuit filed by his ex-girlfriend Cassie.
In the lawsuit, Doe claimed Diddy along with ex-Bad Boy president Harve Pierre and a third man took turns sexually assaulting her in 2003.
Doe said she was in the 11th grade at the time. She said she met Pierre and the third man at a Detroit club.
She said they took a private jet to meet Diddy. On the jet, Doe claimed she was sexually assaulted by Pierre and the other man.
“Before they left for the private jet, Mr. Pierre smoked crack cocaine in a bathroom at the lounge, in which he also sexually assaulted Ms. Doe by forcing her to give him oral sex,” the lawsuit read.
Doe said they then meet up with Diddy at a recording studio. She claimed the men piled her with drugs and alcohol. She said Diddy, Pierre and the other man raped her.
The lawsuit demanded unspecified damages.
“Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged,” Diddy said after the fourth lawsuit was filed. “I will fight for my name, my family, and my truth.”
As RadarOnline.com first reported, earlier this month, Diddy asked the court to not allow Doe to proceed anonymously.
Diddy said the accuser had a “public-facing identity.”
In her new motion, Doe said Diddy’s motion lacked any valid reason to reveal her name.
Her motion read, “Piggybacking on their plan to use [Doe’s] status as a victim of totally unrelated wrongdoing to drag her through the mud in this case, Defendants suggest that if [Doe] name is publicly disclosed, relevant witnesses might start coming out of the woodwork with testimony and evidence that would “shatter her claims.” This is nothing more than a speculative pipedream that is highly unlikely to materialize.”
A judge has yet to rule. The motion was first reported by journalist Meghann Cuniff.
