Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7K views

    Judge Torres Order

    Uploaded by

    jhlomax96
    Judge Torres order in Buzbee case against Diddy and Jay-Z.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judge Torres Order

    Uploaded by

    jhlomax96
    7K views5 pages
    Judge Torres order in Buzbee case against Diddy and Jay-Z.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Torres order in Buzbee case against Diddy and Jay-Z.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    7K views5 pages

    Judge Torres Order

    Uploaded by

    jhlomax96
    Judge Torres order in Buzbee case against Diddy and Jay-Z.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    On December 13, 2024, Carter’s attorney filed an additional letter alerting the Court to a

    recently published interview of Plaintiff on NBC News. ECF Nos. 46, 46-1; see also ECF No.
    52. In the interview, Plaintiff, speaking anonymously, explained her allegations against
    Defendants and her reasons for coming forward now. See generally ECF No. 46-1. Carter’s
    lawyer points to the interview—in which Plaintiff admitted to inconsistencies in her story—as
    evidence that Plaintiff’s claims have “no factual basis whatsoever.” ECF No. 46 at 2. He also
    argues that Plaintiff’s counsel violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) by “fail[ing] to
    undertake a reasonable inquiry into the facts before filing the complaint” and failing to seek
    admission pro hac vice to this Court. Id. Carter’s attorney requested an expedited briefing
    schedule for a motion to strike the first amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure 11(c)(2) and 12(f).1 Id. at 3.

    The next day, Carter’s counsel submitted yet another filing: a motion for an emergency
    order directing the preservation of evidence and striking the amended complaint under Rule
    12(f). ECF Nos. 47–49.

    I. Motion to Proceed Anonymously

    In deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously, courts balance “the plaintiff’s
    interest in anonymity” against “both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the
    defendant.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second
    Circuit has laid out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered:

    (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a
    personal nature;
    (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to
    the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even more critically, to innocent
    non-parties;
    (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those
    harms, including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as a
    result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity;
    (4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of
    disclosure, particularly in light of h[er] age;
    (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private
    parties;
    (6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press h[er]
    claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at
    any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be
    mitigated by the district court;
    (7) whether the plaintiff’s identity has thus far been kept confidential;
    (8) whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the
    plaintiff to disclose h[er] identity;

    1
    Plaintiff’s lawyer has since responded, arguing that a Rule 11 motion would not be appropriate here. See generally
    ECF No. 50.
    2
    (9) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or
    otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants’
    identities; and
    (10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the
    confidentiality of the plaintiff.

    Id. at 190 (cleaned up) (citations omitted). A court “is not required to list each of the factors or
    use any particular formulation as long as it is clear that the court balanced the interests at stake in
    reaching its conclusion.” Id. at 191 n.4.

    Here, the weight of the factors tips in favor of allowing Plaintiff to remain anonymous, at
    least for this stage of the litigation.

    Factors 1, 2, 4, and 7 weigh strongly in favor of anonymity. In her amended complaint,


    Plaintiff alleges that Defendants drugged and raped her when she was only thirteen. Am. Compl.
    ¶¶ 49–60. Courts in this District have recognized that allegations concerning sexual assault are
    “highly sensitive” and “of an extremely personal nature.” Doe v. Skyline Autos. Inc., 375 F.
    Supp. 3d 401, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see, e.g., Doe 3 v. Indyke, No. 24 Civ. 1204, 2024 WL
    4299757, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2024); Doe v. Townes, No. 19 Civ. 8034, 2020 WL 2395159,
    at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020). Plaintiff is “particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of
    disclosure,” Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190: according to her amended complaint, she
    continues to experience depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a seizure disorder
    associated with the stress of her sexual assault, Am. Compl. ¶ 61; see also Indyke, 2024 WL
    4299757, at *2 (denying disclosure in part because of the risk it posed to Plaintiff’s “already
    fragile mental health”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that many of his other clients who
    have filed similar lawsuits against Sean Combs claim to have been threatened by Mr. Combs for
    their decision to speak out. ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 5–6. And finally, although Plaintiff sat for an
    interview with NBC News concerning her case, NBC allowed her to conduct the interview
    anonymously. ECF No. 46-1 at 5.

    Granted, several factors weigh against allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously.


    Plaintiff is challenging the actions of private parties, not the government, and given the media
    attention surrounding this case, the public has a substantial interest in this litigation separate and
    apart from its general interest in an accused “being able to publicly confront an accuser.” Doe v.
    Combs, No. 23 Civ. 10628, 2024 WL 863705, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2024). Alternative
    mechanisms may exist to protect confidentiality, namely, the redaction and sealing of
    documents. See Skyline Autos., 375 F. Supp. 3d at 408. Most importantly, Plaintiff’s continued
    anonymity may cause prejudice to Defendants, making it more difficult for them to collect the
    facts necessary to mount a defense and, as appropriate, challenge Plaintiff’s credibility. Combs,
    2024 WL 863705, at *4 (identifying the “most significant form of prejudice to Defendants” as
    “the discovery disadvantage that Plaintiff’s anonymity would present”). The Court does not take
    such prejudice lightly.

    Nevertheless, at this exceedingly early stage in this case, the factors counseling against
    disclosure outweigh those that counsel in favor. Cf. Doe v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 222,
    226 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (requiring the plaintiff to identify herself as the case approached trial).
    3
    Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously is GRANTED. Plaintiff is advised that,
    because the balance of these factors will certainly shift as this case proceeds, especially if and
    when the parties engage in discovery in earnest, the Court intends to revisit this decision at a
    future date.

    II. Remaining Motions

    Since Carter’s attorney first appeared in this case seventeen days ago, he has submitted a
    litany of letters and motions attempting to impugn the character of Plaintiff’s lawyer, many of
    them expounding on the purported “urgency” of this case. See, e.g., ECF No. 38 at 1–2
    (describing Plaintiff’s counsel as “self-promoting” and accusing him of “extort[ion]”); ECF
    No. 41 at 1 (requesting to be heard “on an expedited basis” and accusing Plaintiff’s counsel of
    “exploiting the legal process to generate media attention”); ECF No. 42 at 1 (asserting that
    Plaintiff’s counsel “seeks only to benefit himself”); ECF No. 46 at 3 (requesting the shortening
    of a deadline “from 21 days to 1 day”); ECF No. 48 at 11, 15 (describing Plaintiff’s counsel as
    willing “to blatantly violate th[e] core ethical obligation[s] of all attorneys” and requesting a
    hearing on a motion the following day).

    Carter’s lawyer’s relentless filing of combative motions containing inflammatory


    language and ad hominem attacks is inappropriate, a waste of judicial resources, and a tactic
    unlikely to benefit his client. The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because
    counsel demands it.

    Moreover, although Carter’s attorney assails Plaintiff’s lawyer as having a “chronic


    inability to follow the rules,” ECF No. 48 at 3, Carter’s counsel has failed to abide by this
    Court’s clear rules. Under the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, and with limited
    exceptions, “[a] pre-motion letter is required prior to the filing of any motion.” ¶ 3.A.1.
    Although Carter’s attorney stated that he “intend[ed] to file immediately a motion to strike the
    first amended complaint under [Rule 12(f)],” ECF No. 46 at 3, he did not give Plaintiff the
    requisite five business days to respond, see Individual Practices ¶ 3.A.2., wait for the Court to set
    a motion schedule, see id., or state whether any exception to the Court’s Individual Practices
    applied, see ECF Nos. 47–49. This is unacceptable.2 Counsel is hereby advised that any further
    motions filed in violation of the Court’s Individual Practices may be denied on that ground alone.

    Lastly, although Carter’s attorney is entitled to file a Rule 11 motion without first seeking
    leave of court, see Individual Practices ¶ 3.A, the Court discourages this approach. If he still
    intends to serve Plaintiff with a motion for sanctions, the Court denies his request to shorten the
    safe harbor provision contained within Rule 11(c)(2) from 21 days to 1 day. See ECF No. 46 at
    3.

    2
    On the merits, Carter’s motion to strike is denied. Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) “are generally disfavored”
    and will be granted “only if there is strong reason to do so.” Abdou v. Walker, No. 19 Civ. 1824, 2022 WL
    3334700, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2022) (citation omitted). Carter’s motion, which summarily asserts that
    Plaintiff’s claims are “baseless” and “salacious,” does not clear that high bar. ECF No. 48 at 14.
    4
    Carter’s motion to strike the amended complaint under Rule 12(f) is DENIED. By
    January 10, 2025, Plaintiff shall file her response to Carter’s motion for an order directing the
    preservation of evidence. By January 17, 2025, Carter shall file his reply, if any.

    The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 32, 37,
    40–41, and 46.

    SO ORDERED.

    Dated: December 26, 2024


    New York, New York

    You might also like