Feds add two charges for Diddy as judges consider anonymity for alleged victims
Opening statements in Diddy's criminal trial are scheduled to begin May 12. Three judges recently said plaintiffs suing him in four lawsuits can't proceed anonymously.
Federal prosecutors on Friday announced two new charges against Sean “Diddy” Combs ahead of his criminal trial next month in New York City.
The jailed rapper and business mogul faces five counts under the third superseding indictment: racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
The alleged victim in the new sex trafficking count also is one of the alleged victims in the racketeering conspiracy charge, and is an alleged victim in the two prostitution charges. The other alleged victim in the prostitution counts is identified as Victim-1, who is Combs’ former girlfriend Cassie Ventura.
The new indictment also includes a sentencing enhancement for the racketeering charge that relates to the new sex trafficking offense, and it clarifies that prosecutors believe Combs “kidnapped and carried and displayed a firearm to female victim, and that the defendant dangled a female victim over an apartment balcony,” according to letter from prosecutors to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian.
Combs’ public relations team said in a statement that the indictment doesn’t contain “new allegations or new accusers.”
“These are the same individuals, former long-term girlfriends, who were involved in consensual relationships. This was their private sex life, defined by consent, not coercion,” according to the statement.
Prosecutors want Combs to be arraigned during his final pre-trial conference on April 25. Jury selection is to begin on May 5, and opening statements are scheduled to begin May 12.
There are four alleged victims. Prosecutors expect each to testify, and they asked Judge Subramanian on Friday to allow three to testify under pseudonyms. Ventura, identified in the filing as Victim-1, “is prepared to testify under her own name,” according to a 24-page motion, but the others “have asked that their identities not be revealed to the press or public.”
Prosecutors want them to testify under pseudonyms and the court to seal exhibits with their true names. They also want Subramanian to preclude Combs’ lawyers from “eliciting personally identifying details of those witnesses.”
”This case has already received an exceptional amount of media coverage, which will presumably only increase as trial proceeds,” according to the motion. “Permitting these measures will prevent unnecessary public disclosure of the victims’ identities, and the harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment, and other adverse consequences that would almost certainly follow if these women were forced to reveal their true names publicly at trial.”
Combs’ lawyers oppose anonymity and will file written opposition to the motion.
Similar arguments about anonymity are being litigated in some of the civil cases against Combs. Three of Subramanian’s colleagues in the Southern District of New York recently ruled that four people suing Combs for sexual assault must publicly identify themselves if they want their lawsuits to continue.
One plaintiff moved to dismiss the case instead of filing an amended complaint with her true name. The three others have until Friday and next Thursday to decide if they’ll do the same.
The dismissal occurred on Monday in a lawsuit alleging Combs raped a woman in 1995 during a party at Elks Plaza in New York City for the music video to “One More Chance” by The Notorious B.I.G.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman said in a March 6 order that the woman “cannot be granted anonymity merely because she brings a sexual assault claim, regardless of the severity of her allegations.”
“The very gravity of the charges, combined with the fact that Plaintiff has presented no evidence of specific and concrete harm from disclosure of her identity and the severe prejudice to Defendants from keeping that identity confidential, undermine her claim to proceed anonymously,” according to the order.
Liman gave the woman until March 20 to file an amended complaint under her true name, and she never did so. The judge dismissed the case after Combs’ lawyers reminded him of the missed deadline.
Plaintiff’s lawyer Tony Buzbee of Houston, Texas, told Legal Affairs and Trials in an email that his client “opted not to proceed.”
“There is a lot of fear amongst these plaintiffs. I thus can’t blame her. These are tough cases and they are many times re-traumatizing for those who pursue them,” Buzbee wrote. “Each case stands on its own merit. This woman chose not to proceed and subject herself to the media circus and the perceived danger she felt. We have to respect that.”
Two other judges last week issued orders similar to Liman’s.
U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan on March 28 rejected anonymity for a man who says he was drugged with Rohypnol at a house party in New York City in 2022 and awoke to Diddy sexually assaulting him.
Cronan said privacy interests favor the man, but he said the risk of potential harm is neutral. The judge initially allowed the man to proceed anonymously in a Nov. 22 order that credited the “severe emotional distress” the complaint says the man suffered. But Combs’ lawyers opposed the request for longterm anonymity, so the man’s distress claim “merits closer scrutiny,” and the Cronan determined the man’s distress claim is too general.
“While the Court does not doubt that an incident of sexual assault is often if not always traumatic for the victim, a ‘conclusory assertion of the possibility of generalized harm — applicable to all victims of sexual assault — is insufficient to carry [Plaintiff’s] burden,’” Cronan wrote, quoting a February 2024 ruling from his Southern District of New York colleague U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke in another lawsuit against Combs.
Cronan rejected Buzbee’s offer to identify the woman only to Combs’ lawyers and not the public. He cited an order from U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil last October that rejected anonymity in another lawsuit against Combs and said people “with information about Plaintiff or [his] allegations that would be helpful to the defense likely would have no way of knowing to come forward.”
Cronan also said he has no basis to assume the man’s identification “would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to him or harm more generally to innocent non-parties.” The man also is represented by Buzbee, who filed a declaration stating Combs threatened violence against many of his other clients or their families. The judge, however, pointed out that Buzbee didn’t mention the man who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit before Cronan.
“This vague representation as to individuals other than Plaintiff is insufficient to establish a risk of physical harm to Plaintiff himself, even assuming Mr. Buzbee’s unsworn declaration is properly before the Court,” Cronan wrote.
Cronan cited an order in January from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejecting anonymity in another lawsuit against Combs and said “there’s no basis” to assume Buzbee “has reliable information” to support his declaration that nearly all his clients or their families have been threatened.
Cronan’s order followed two orders from U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon rejecting anonymity for a woman who accuses Combs of sexually assaulting her in 1991 and a man who says Diddy assaulted him in 1998. Both plaintiffs are represented by Buzbee, who filed a declaration that Rochon noted is “substantively identical to declarations filed on the same day in other Doe v. Combs cases in this District involving different plaintiffs and facts.”
Rochon said neither plaintiff “provided any particularized evidence or even non-speculative allegations” to show that disclosing their identities would harm them or others.
“Such evidence plays a vital role in the balancing of competing interests in these cases, and its absence is particularly salient here given the risk of severe prejudice to Defendants from continued anonymity, hampering their ability to confront their accuser, guard against reputational harm, and defend an action based on events from more than three decades ago,” according to Rochon’s orders.
The orders noted Buzbee’s declaration was unsworn, which touches on an issue that caused him problems in other lawsuits against Combs: his lack of of admission to practice in the SDNY.
Buzbee is licensed to practice law in Texas and New York state, and he’s admitted in the Brooklyn-based Eastern District of New York. He likely would have been admitted to the SDNY if he’d applied before his New York-based co-counsel Antigone Curis filed dozens of complaints against Combs that bear Buzbee’s name and signature.
But he didn’t apply until Jan. 29, which U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla cited when she rejected his admission on Feb. 13. Failla, who is chair of the SDNY’s Committee on Grievances, ordered Buzbee to include a copy of her order if he seeks admission against or applies for pro hac vice admission.
Pro hac vice admission is typically sought by out-of-state attorneys who are working one case. Buzbee applied for it in a few other lawsuits against Combs in SDNY, which drew rare opposition from Combs’ lawyers.
One of the cases is the case in which Judge Vyskocil rejected plaintiff anonymity last October, and the judge approached Buzbee’s lack of admission proactively. On Feb. 18, she she ordered Buzbee to file a motion to appear pro hac vice and said she “has been informed that Mr. Buzbee is not admitted to practice in the Southern District of New York.”
Curis is the only attorney officially representing Buzbee’s clients in the SDNY cases, and she filed Buzbee’s pro hac vice application on Feb. 24. Combs’ lawyers at Sher Tremonte LLP filed their opposition the next day. Vyskocil still was consider Buzbee’s application when Curis began notifying judges in other lawsuits that Buzbee was withdrawing as counsel “until such time as he is admitted to practice in this Honorable District.” The notices say the plaintiffs “will continue to be represented by remaining counsel of record from Curis Law.”
Curis hadn’t filed anything in Vyskocil’s case when the judge issued a one-line docket entry: “By the close of business tomorrow, Plaintiff's counsel shall inform the Court and Defendants whether the motion of Anthony G. Buzbee to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this action has been withdrawn or remains live.”
Curis withdrew Buzbee’s application a short while later.
Judge Vyskocil issued an order the next day that said Buzbee “never filed an appearance in this action” and instead “improperly filed and litigated this case using the ECF credentials of local counsel, whose apparent complicity in his improper conduct may be grounds for sanctions,” referring to Curis. She noted that Curis filed a declaration stating, “I am advised by Mr. Buzbee that he has never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by any court” when Buzbee had recently been denied admission in SDNY.
“Plaintiff's counsel is on notice that further failure to comply with the procedural rules that govern this Court and her ethical responsibilities will have grave consequences,” according to the order.
Curis told the judge in a March 24 letter, “respectfully, that description is simply not true.”
“Moreover, I cannot, by my silence, allow it to appear true,” wrote Curis, a licensed lawyer in New York since 2014. She described her self as “co-counsel with The Buzbee Law Firm” on state and federal lawsuits against Combs, and she said Buzbee selected her “because I am a former prosecutor who has extensive experience representing victims of sexual assault.”
“Mr. Buzbee did not file or litigate this case with my ECF credentials (nor would I let him or anyone else do so),” Curis wrote. “I reviewed all documents in this case and filed them under my ECF because I approved them. I have been working alongside The Buzbee Law Firm to bring justice to our clients affected by Mr. Combs.”
Curis said Buzbee signed the complaint and other documents “as my co-cousnel.”
“At the time, I did not view that as problematic nor did I view that as the entering of a formal appearance and we apologize to the Court for any misunderstanding regarding same and will be guided accordingly in future filings,” Curis wrote.
Judge Vyskocil didn’t take kindly to Curis’ response: She ordered her to show cause why she shouldn’t be sanctioned “for making false or misleading representations to the Court,” referring to Curis’ declaration about Buzbee telling her he’d never been denied admission. The judge scheduled a hearing for April 14 at 11 a.m. in her New York City courtroom.
In another case, Buzbee withdrew after U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams on March 11 “ordered him to explain why he didn’t disclose he’s not admitted to practice in SDNY federal court.” Buzbee told the judge he “made an error in judgment” and seeks “to remedy this error by withdrawing my representation of the Plaintiff in this matter pending the resolution of my admission to this court.”
He said he believes he’s “eminently qualified and should not be precluded from representing the Plaintiff in this action.”
“At this time, however, my admission status has become a distraction that has shifted the focus of the matter away from where it should be, which is securing justice for the Plaintiff,” Buzbee wrote. “Plaintiff will continue to be represented by remaining counsel of record from Curis Law as I sort these issues out.”
On Friday, attorney David Fortney, who works with Buzbee in Houston, filed for pro hac vice admission in the SDNY of New York lawsuits against Combs. Buzbee continues to pursue lawsuits against Buzbee in other courts, including recent filings in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Buzbee’s admission problems began with the lawsuit against Combs that he amended to name Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter as a defendant. Carter’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP sought sanctions against Buzbee under Rule 11 and suggested he didn’t seek admission pro hac vice to avoid accountability for filing a complaint “that contains provably false statements.” They later dropped the motion, and Buzbee moved to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
Carter’s lawyers currently are suing Buzbee in Los Angeles County Superior Court for defamation, extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They’re also suing Buzbee and the accuser for malicious prosecution in the federal Southern District of Alabama, and the suit includes a defamation claim against the woman.
They’re due in court in Santa Monica on Monday for a hearing before Judge Mark Epstein, who is deciding whether to strike the extortion claim.
Judge dismisses some claims in music producer’s lawsuit
A federal judge is allowing sexual assault, human trafficking and premises liability claims against Combs to proceed in a lawsuit from a producer who worked on his latest album.
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed racketeering, breach of contract and emotional distress claims brought by Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, but his order on the other claims means Combs could eventually face trial.
Jones’ lawsuit alleges Combs assaulted him between September 2022 and September 2023 while Jones worked as a producer on Combs’ “The Love Album: Off the Grid.” Combs’ son Justin Dior Combs is a codefendant, as is actor Cuba Gooding, Jr.
Last year, Jones’ lawyer Tyrone Blackburn dismissed all claims against UMG, Motown Records and UMG Chairman and CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, who was accused of financing Diddy’s illegal acts. He did so after defense lawyers sought Rule 11 sanctions against him for filing false claims.
Judge Oetken didn’t sanction Blackburn, but his March 24 order said he “finds much of Blackburn’s conduct regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be unsettling.”
“Blackburn’s filings are replete with inaccurate statements of law, conclusory accusations, and inappropriate ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel,” the judge wrote. “Blackburn has a professional obligation, both to the Court and to his client, to state the law accurately, to collaborate in a respectful and constructive manner with fellow lawyers, and to allow this litigation to proceed efficiently.”
Blackburn said he views the order “as a win.”
“Defendants wanted a total dismissal and they failed to get it,” Blackburn said in a statement to several news outlets.
I emailed Blackburn asking if he had a statement about Oetken’s order, and he replied, “You really should know better than to reach out to me. Do yourself a favor and never contact my office again.”
Blackburn told other news agencies that the order means “play time is over.”
“I know where all of the bodies are buried and I have a HUGE shovel. Time to start digging!” he said.
Judges must assume all facts alleged in a lawsuit are true when deciding a dismissal motion. The legal issue is if the alleged facts are enough to justify the claim, and Judge Oetken said the standard “precludes most of Jones’s alleged injuries from supporting RICO standing, including his claims of trauma, mental-health problems, emotional pain and suffering, and embarrassment and humiliation.”
The judge said Jones’ “only compensable injury” is his claim that he wasn’t paid for his work on the “Love” album, but Combs refusing to pay “is not itself a RICO predicate act, even if the contract breach resulted from Jones’s refusal to participate in Combs’s alleged racketeering scheme.” The other alleged predicate acts in the lawsuit “did not foreseeably or naturally preclude Defendants from honoring their recording contract with Jones.”
“Indeed, Jones’s own theory of why he felt pressured to go along with Combs’s sex-, drug-, and firearm-related misconduct for so long is that he believed he would be compensated not only under his contract, but in additional benefits like ‘securing Grammy Awards, purchasing $20 million homes, participating on future projects, $250,000 cash payments, and meeting influential music industry executives,’” according to the order.
Oetken said Jones failed to address arguments from the defense in his brief opposing dismissal, “and while the Court prefers to decide issues on the merits, it should not be necessary to root around a 402-paragraph complaint to contrive novel arguments on Jones’s behalf.”
The complaint also claimed negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but Oetken said it doesn’t “adequately plead a required element of those torts—severe emotional distress.”
“Here, Jones merely recites the elements of the tort throughout the operative complaint, without providing further detail as to the nature and extent of the emotional suffering he has experienced due to Combs’s actions,” the judge wrote.
The two premies liability claims against Combs relate to Jones’ claim that he was sexually assaulted in Combs’ Miami home on Thanksgiving 2022 by a woman identified as Jane Doe 1, and to his claim that Gooding assaulted him on a yacht rented by Combs in the Virgin Islands in January 2023.
Judge Oetken said the complaint adequately states the claims by alleging Combs controlled the premises and knew of Gooding and Jane Doe’s propensity to sexually assault people.
Combs’ lawyers argued Gooding “had only been accused of assaulting women, not men, making his assault of Jones unforeseeable.”
“But it is not implausible as a matter of law to think that someone who has assaulted members of one sex in the past is more likely to assault members of the other sex in the future,” the judge wrote.
Oetken directed Jones to “file a letter within two weeks of the entry of this opinion explaining the status of service as to Justin Combs and Cuba Gooding, Jr.”
Blackburn had not yet done so as of April 4.
Links to civil court orders about plaintiff anonymity are below for paid subscribers. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. Thank you!