The Moscow Murders and More

The Mega Edition: Macy's John Doe's Allegations And His Motion To Remain Anonymous (12/31/24)

Sean "Diddy" Combs faces serious allegations from multiple individuals, including an incident involving a man identified as "John Doe." According to the lawsuit, in 2008, Combs forcibly assaulted the plaintiff in the stockroom of Macy's flagship store in Manhattan's Herald Square. The plaintiff, who worked as an advisor for Ecko Unltd.—a clothing brand competing with Combs's Sean John line—claims he was violently attacked by Combs's bodyguards, threatened with death, and then compelled to perform oral sex on Combs.

After the assault, the plaintiff alleges he reported the incident to Macy's security, but no investigation ensued. Instead, he was barred from the store and subsequently terminated from his position, purportedly due to Macy's executives prioritizing a multimillion-dollar deal with Sean John Clothing.

This case is among several legal actions against Combs, with accusations ranging from sexual assault to sex trafficking. Combs has denied all allegations, with his legal team stating that he "categorically denies as false and defamatory any claim that he sexually abused anyone—adult or minor, man or woman."

(commercial at 8:07)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

combs-ecko-complaint.pdf

In October 2024, a plaintiff identified as John Doe filed a motion seeking permission to proceed anonymously in a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs. The plaintiff alleges that in 2008, while working at Macy's flagship store in Manhattan, he was sexually assaulted by Combs. The motion to proceed under a pseudonym was submitted to protect the plaintiff's privacy and to prevent potential retaliation or public scrutiny. The court is currently considering this request, balancing the plaintiff's interest in anonymity against the public's right to open judicial proceedings and the defendant's ability to mount a defense. This case is part of a series of legal actions against Combs, who faces multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.

(commercial at 8:19)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Duration:: 43m
Broadcast on:: 31 Dec 2024
Audio Format:: other

At an enterprise level, nothing is more important than communication. Grammarly for enterprise enables your company to work smarter and faster. Other AI tools can't quantify business impact, but Grammarly gives you actionable insights and measurable results with features like their effective communication score, which tracks key metrics so you can make data-driven decisions to improve outcomes. Visit grammarly.com/enterprise. That's grammarly.com/enterprise. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're taking a look at another complaint filed against Diddy, this time by a John Doe, who says that they were molested by Diddy at a Macy's. So, let's dive into the complaint and let's see what this accuser has to say. Case number 124-CV07774. John Doe, plaintiff, for Sean Combs. Complaint and demand for jury trial. Plaint of John Doe, by and through his attorney, the Busbee law firm, for his complaint alleges as follows. Introduction. This case seeks both compensatory and punitive damages for aggravated sexual assault of plaintiff John Doe, which occurred at a Macy's department store. The conduct described herein is violent and shockingly typical of how defendant Sean Combs conducted himself for many years. Many individuals and entities facilitated and enabled his abhorrent conduct. Sean Combs believed he was above the law. He is not. For decades, Sean Combs. Abused, molested, raped, assaulted, threatened and coerced women, men and minors, for sexual gratification to assert dominance and to conceal his abhorrent conduct. Combs accomplished these acts by and through a criminal enterprise built on his success as a rapper, record producer, and record executive. Combs is reportedly one of the wealthiest musical artists in the world. Behind the facade of being three time Grammy award winner, discovering and developing multiple famous musical artists and ranking on Forbes list of the highest paid entertainers in the world, there existed something sinister, a dark underbelly of crime, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, bribery, and prostitution. Combs is a menace to society, women, men, and children. While his wealth has kept him above consequence for years, Combs now faces the awesome power of the American judicial system and ultimately a jury of his peers who will be asked to punish him for the deplorable conduct described here in. Combs businesses. Combs business enterprise is central to the pervasive acts of sexual assault and abuse committed by him, his posse, and his pals in the last decade. Combs operated the business headquartered at various times in Manhattan and Los Angeles under a variety of United States based corporate entities, including Bad Boy Entertainment, Bad Boy Books, Bad Boy Records, Bad Boy Entertainment, LLC, Bad Boy Productions, LLC, Daddy's House, Recording Studio, NCE, OPCO, LLC, Combs Global, Combs Enterprise, Combs Enterprises, and Combs Global. Corporate entities in the Combs business portfolio included record labels, a recording studio, and a apparel line, an alcohol experience promoting business, a marketing agency, talent discovery, a television network, and a media company. On the surface, each of these businesses served a legitimate purpose related to entertainment, music, and other subjects, but in reality Combs buy and through, himself and his agents employees, and contractors use these businesses to sexually assault, abuse, threaten, and coerce hundreds of individuals through sexual quid pro quo schemes, as well as to take advantage of individuals with impunity, thinking that victims would never have any recourse. Combs and his agents, employees, and contractors through these Combs businesses would tell victims, "This is what it takes to be famous. What are you willing to do to become a star and perform this sexual act or else?" To coerce, cajole, or force victims into performing non-consensual sexual acts for the gratification of Mr. Combs and his cohorts. Members and associates of the Combs business engaged in or attempted to engage in, among other activities sex trafficking, force labor, interstate transportation for the purpose of prostitution, coercion, and enticement to engage in prostitution, narcotics offenses, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. The Combs business constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of Combs. Combs pervasive history of sexual assault and violence. For years, Combs and his business engaged in a persistent and pervasive pattern of abuse toward women, men, and minors. This abuse was, at times, verbal, emotional, physical, and sexual. As part of his pattern of abuse, Combs manipulated both men and women to participate in highly orchestrated performances of sexual activity with both commercial sex workers and unsuspecting partygoers. Combs ensured participation from these individuals by, among other things, obtaining and distributing narcotics to them with or without their knowledge, controlling their careers, leveraging his financial support, and threatening to cut off the same, and using intimidation, violence, and illicit drugs. Combs, while celebrated for his business acumen and influence, in the entertainment world has often been described in a more troubling light as powerful, manipulative, and problematic. His aggressive tactics, both in business and personal dealings, have drawn criticism with many viewing him as someone who leverages his power to intimidate and control. This darker side of Combs persona has been underscored by the numerous lawsuits and allegations that have surfaced over the years. Despite his undeniable success, his rise to the top is marred by his reputation for being ruthless and manipulative using his influence in ways that have left a trail of legal and personal controversies, including but not limited to the following. A. nightclub shooting incident in 1999. Combs was embroiled in a high profile case related to a nightclub shooting in New York involving his then girlfriend Jennifer Lopez and rapper Shine. Combs was acquitted of all charges, though the case remains a significant legal event in his career. Multiple assault allegations. Combs has faced several lawsuits related to alleged physical assaults, many of which have been settled out of court. Business disputes. Combs has been involved in various business related legal conflicts, particularly surrounding his Sean John clothing line and other ventures. These disputes often involved contractual disagreements and trademark claims. D. Claims by Cassie Ventura. Combs former girlfriend Cassandra Ventura filed a lawsuit accusing him of years of physical emotional and sexual abuse during their relationship. Cassie alleged repeated instances of assault, core sexual acts, and drug use, all contributing to an environment of fear and manipulation. Combs, particularly fancied the use of popular date rape drug, rufanol, or GHB to commit heinous, non-consensual acts of sexual violence and rape against countless victims. Combs would often secretly use the drug and alcoholic beverages served at his parties, typically in a seemingly innocent glass of champagne or a lemon drop. Party goers were forced to consume the alcoholic beverage, containing GHB either prior to entering or while at Combs party. There are also allegations of Combs dowsing victims in lotions or similar body oils, also laced with GHB, so that the drug would be absorbed through the victim's skin and make it easier to take advantage of, exploit, and assaulting him or her. Combs' recurrent and pervasive physical abuse took place for multiple decades. His tendency for violence and sexual assault were well known amongst his colleagues, employees, agents, and businesses. On numerous occasions from at least in or about 1996 and continuing for years, Combs assaulted women and men by striking, punching, dragging, throwing objects at and kicking them. Combs also assaulted children both physically and sexually. In 1996, Combs was found guilty of criminal mischief for threatening a photographer from New York Post with a gun. In 1999, he was arrested and charged with second-degree assault and criminal mischief in connection with assaulting a record executive. Combs was arrested again the same year for his involvement in a shooting at a New York City nightclub. Another instance of violence occurred at a Los Angeles hotel in or about March 2016, which was captured on video and later publicly reported, where Combs kicked, dragged, and threw a vase at a woman as she was attempting to leave the hotel room. When hotel security staff intervened, Combs attempted to bribe staff members to ensure their silence. In the past year, numerous civil complaints have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have been sexually abused by Combs between 1991 and 2009. In November of 2023, three lawsuits were filed against Combs under the New York Adult Survivors Act. Cassie Ventura, an artist signed the bad boy sued Combs in New York for rape and physical abuse. She alleged Combs facilitated these acts by and through, supplying Ms. Ventura with copious amounts of drugs and urging her to take them, beginning in 2006. Joy Dickerson Neal also sued Combs in New York, alleging Combs' drugder sexually assaulted her and secretly recorded the assault in '91. Lisa Gardner, who Combs met at an event hosted by a record label affiliated with Bad Boy, sued him for raping her and the friend in 1990 or '91 when she was only 16. In December of 2023, an anonymous plaintiff sued Combs in New York for drugging and gang raping her in 2003 when she was only 17. The victim alleged the employees and business associates of Combs threw their affiliation with Bad Boy, Enterprise, lured her to Combs' home where Combs then raped her. In February of 2024, Rodney Littlerod Jones, one of Combs' former producers sued Combs for forcing him to engage in unwanted sex acts and sex trafficking, among other allegations. Mr. Jones alleged that Combs regularly drugged others, including minors, by giving them drugs laced with ecstasy and other date rape drugs. Mr. Jones alleged that Combs, in fact, drug them, as well, in order to commit acts of sexual assault. In May of 2024, former model Crystal McKinney and April Lampros sued Combs. Mimicking what has now become an own pattern, Combs promised Ms. McKinney to help her with her modeling career in exchange for engaging in sexual conduct with him. Ms. Lampros was an intern under Rister Records, which was an owner of Bad Boy, also sued Combs in May of 2024 in New York County Supreme Court for raping her on multiple occasions, secretly filming these acts and showing the recordings to multiple people. Ms. Lampros also alleged that Combs ordered her to take drugs on one occasion before he raped her. In 2024, former adult film star Adria English, who was employed by Combs, as an entertainer at his infamous white party, was brought together the biggest names in the music and entertainment industries sued Combs in the Southern District of New York for sex trafficking, alleging that he required her to consume drinks laced with ecstasy and secretly recorded sexual acts. In September of 2024, singer and songwriter Don Angelique Richard also sued Combs. Richard was employed by Combs as part of the girl group Downity Kane, formed by Combs, and later as a key member of Combs banned Diddy dirty money. She sued Combs in New York for sexual assault, false imprisonment, and for subjecting her to hostile working conditions, due to her gender, including degrading comments and threats. Ms. Richards has alleged that Combs regularly supplied others, including minors, with copious amounts of drugs and alcohol, and subjected them to sexual acts while they were sedated and/or unconscious due to the drugs and alcohol. In September 2024, a federal grand jury in Manhattan indicted Combs and charged him with sex trafficking, racketeering, and the creation of a criminal enterprise in which he abused threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct. The indictment explains that Combs' abuse of women and minors was enabled by the employees, resources, and influence of the multifaceted business empire that he led and controlled, creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Combs' long history of violence against both women and men unequivocally establishes that his actions are motivated by gender, Combs has a profound contempt for women, and a desire to dominate both minors and other men. His conduct shows a long-standing practice of denigrating, defeating, and attempting to humiliate men and women and children. His practices and desires are different for men, women, and children, but his actions are unequivocally motivated by the victim's particular gender and age. Plaintive delegations herein substantially mirror Combs' prior conduct as established through criminal indictments and other lawsuits. Through this case, Plaintive seeks a full measure of justice from a man who thought his power, money, and influence rendered him untouchable. Plaintive joins many other victims by filing this complaint in the hopes their common voice makes it possible for Combs to not assault another person ever again. The conduct complained of, in many of the cases, to be brought, involve others who facilitated, encouraged, or participated, in the conduct alleged, the parties. Plaintive John Doe is a male who resides in Ohio, the city has been left unpled for anonymity. Defendant Sean Combs is a male who, on information and belief, resides in New York City, through incarceration in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Combs owned and/or controlled, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Bad Boy Productions, Bad Boy Book, Holdings, Bad Boy Records, Bad Boy Entertainment, Bad Boy Productions, Daddy's House Recording Studios, and CEO, OPCO, LLC. Combs Global, Combs Enterprise, LLC, all together, the Combs Corporations. The facts of Combs ownership and titles at the Combs Corporations enabled him to commit the unlawful sexual violence against Plaintive, described herein, and/or to harass and subsequently intimidate him, into silence, after the rape. Defendant, CEO, OPCO, LLC, Combs Global, Combs Enterprise, LLC, is a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware, that has its principal place of business, in West Hollywood, California. On information and belief, Combs Global is an alter ego for Combs and/or a successor, in interest to Combs other corporations and/or was established or used by Combs for the purpose of moving, disposing of, and/or insulating his assets, including in connection with his criminal activities, to avoid liability. Combs Global, currently owns, controls, and oversees, Bad Boy and Combs other business adventures in the music, fashion, fragrance, beverage, marketing, film, television, and media industries. As part of his renowned Bad Boy record label and brand, Combs has established several corporate entities under the Bad Boy name over the past few decades, including but not limited to Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Bad Boy Production Holdings, Bad Boy Book Holdings, Bad Boy Records, Bad Boy Entertainment, Bad Boy Productions LLC together Bad Boy, Uninformation and Belief, all Bad Boy corporate entities or alter egos for Combs are controlled and/or directed by Combs and/or established or were established to be used by Combs for the purpose of moving, disposing of, or insulating his assets including in connection with criminal activities to avoid liability. Uninformation and Belief, all active Bad Boy entities are now owned and/or controlled by Combs and/or Combs Global. Combs use the Bad Boy premises recording studio and their ownership and titles at Bad Boy to commit. The unlawful sexual violence against plaintiff described herein and/or to harass and subsequently intimidate him into silence after the rape. Defendant Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Incorporated is a domestic business corporation incorporated in New York and Belief Now its principal place of business is Hollywood, California. Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings is part of the Bad Boy Enterprise founded and owned by Combs and Uninformation and Belief is now owned and/or controlled by Combs and/or by Combs Global. Defendant Bad Boy Production Holdings is a domestic business corporation incorporated in New York that Uninformation and Belief now allows its principal place of business in West Hollywood. Bad Boy Production Holdings is part of the Bad Boy Enterprise founded and owned by Combs and Uninformation and Belief is now owned and/or controlled by Combs and/or Combs Global. Defendant Bad Boy Holdings is a domestic business corporation in New York on Information and Belief now has its principal place of business at 1440 Broadway Third Floor New York. Bad Boy Holdings is part of Bad Boy Enterprise founded and owned by Combs and Uninformation and Belief is now owned and/or controlled by Combs and/or Combs Global. Defendant Bad Boy Records is a Delaware limited liability company that Uninformation and Belief is headquartered in New York and California. Uninformation and Belief Bad Boy Records LLC is part of Bad Boy Enterprise and/or a successor in interest to other Bad Boy defendants that comprise the Bad Boy Enterprise founded and owned by Combs. Uninformation and Belief Bad Boy Entertainment is now owned and/or controlled by Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings and/or by Combs and/or Combs Global. Defendant Bad Boy Productions is a New York limited liability company and Uninformation and Belief is headquartered in New York and/or California. Uninformation and Belief all members of Bad Boy Productions are citizens of New York and California. Bad Boy Productions is part of the Bad Boy Enterprise and/or a successor in interest to other Bad Boy defendants. Defendant Macy's is a domestic business corporation doing business in New York that Uninformation and Belief now has its principal place of business at 151 West 34th Street, New York, New York. Defendant organizational does 1 through 10 are currently unknown entities who were owned by and/or employed by defendant Combs and enabled the commission of the conduct complaint of herein. As the parties engage in discovery, plaintiff retains the right to amend the complaint to add these entities by name. Each of the Combs corporations aided and abetted and conspired with Combs in committing the unlawful sexual violence against plaintiff described herein are alter egos for Combs completely dominated by him and used for his personal interest and to engage in wrongdoing, which are plaintiff and others and/or serves or have served as vehicles for Combs to move, dispose of, and/or insulate his assets, including his connection with criminal activities and to avoid compensating the victims of his many crimes, including plaintiff. Jurisdiction and Venue This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to US Code 28, Section 1332, because the cases between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendants because he acts giving rise to claims by plaintiff took place in New York State and because several of the defendants are domiciled in New York State and regularly transact business in New York State. Venue's proper in this district pursuant to US Code 28, Section 1391(b), because the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, jury demand. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on his claims in this action. Factual Allegations In 2008, plaintiff worked as an advisor for echo clothing and had been employed by the company for approximately seven years. Echo clothing at the time was among the most popular clothing lines in the country. In 2008, Combs, Sean John Clothing Line, was also hitting peak popularity. Plaintiff had in fact met Combs several times in connection with Combs' development and marketing of the Sean John Clothing Line. Echo and Sean John were competing lines within the clothing industry, both having had a large amount of success within the hip-hop community. Moreover, both lines had relationships with and were carried at the time by Macy's, a well-known department store. In or around May 2008, plaintiff was in the stockroom at Macy's flagship store at Harold Square in Manhattan when Combs and three bodyguards entered the stockroom. Plaintiff came upon Combs and his bodyguard at a T-junction in the stockroom where Plaintiff had little room to maneuver. Combs was flanked by two large bodyguards to the left and one large bodyguard to the right. Immediately, after turning the corner in the stockroom, Plaintiff was hit hard around the base of the neck, possibly with a pistol. The blow forced Plaintiff to put his hands to his knees. As Plaintiff looked up, he saw each of the bodyguards at guns in their waistbands. Plaintiff heard multiple voices, "Call out things like, 'I'll kill you.'" Combs approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff was still on his hands and knees and said, "Suck my dick, Echo," referring to the clothing line that Plaintiff worked for. Combs thereafter forced his penis into Plaintiff's mouth and proceeded to forcefully and brutally orally rate Plaintiff. Combs continued for at least two minutes until ejaculating. While orally raping Plaintiff, Combs grabbed Plaintiff's hair and made derogatory comments, "Like you? Like that, white boy?" After he was finished, Combs threw Plaintiff's head aside and said words to the effect of, "Shut up, or I'll kill you." Combs and his bodyguards began to leave, taunting Plaintiff as they did. Combs proceeded to gather Sean John merchandise from the stockroom. He left the stockroom and headed out to the Macy's retail floor, where he began passing out merchandise to an adoring crowd as if nothing had happened. In shock and traumatized, Plaintiff gathered himself and went to Macy's security to report the assault. By this point, Combs and his bodyguards had left the store. Plaintiff told someone would speak with him, but no one ever did. Shortly thereafter, Macy stopped letting Plaintiff into its flagship Herald Square store. Approximately three weeks later, Terry Lundgren, CEO of Macy's pressured Echo executives to fire Plaintiff because Macy's had just signed a multi-million dollar deal with Sean John clothing. Echo thereafter terminated Plaintiff from employment, and Plaintiff was told he could no longer live in his company, paid apartment. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the report of the assault was destroyed or otherwise purged from Macy's records, and no action was ever taken as a result of the report. Plaintiff ultimately had to move out in New York, Plaintiff still fears for his life as a result of the incident and the threats made against him on that day, including the fact that Plaintiff was known to Combs by the way of his work with rival clothing company Echo, first cause of action, violation in New York City, victims of gender, motivated violence, protection act, all defendants. Plaintiff, hereby incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as it fully set forth herein. By forcing sexual contact on the Plaintiff, specifically by physically assaulting and then forcibly orally raping Plaintiff, defendant Combs committed a crime of violence motivated by gender under the victims of gender Motivated Violence, Protection Act, VGM, VPA, as defined in New York City Administrative Code Section 10-1103. The requirement that the crime of violence be committed because of gender or on the basis of gender and do, at least in part, to an animist based on the victim's gender, is satisfied because defendant Combs forced Plaintiff to engage in a sexual interaction without consent. John Doe was incapacitated by a physical blow and then forced to remain on his hands and knees due to threats of violence backed up by the presence of firearms on three bodyguards. The non-consensual sexual contact herein presented a serious risk of physical injury and in fact, caused such injury. Gender animists in here is when consent is absent, moreover Combs' long history of violence and sexual abuse against men, events is a deep contempt and desire for domination over men. The Combs' business and defendant Macy's conspired with and enabled Combs to commit the crime of violence motivated by gender because Combs sexually assaulted Plaintiff at a department store doing business with the Combs' business and carrying Combs' business products. On information and belief, Combs' businesses routinely committed sexual assault and gender-motivated violence, as detailed in other civil lawsuits, to further the business purpose of the Combs' enterprise. Giving Combs' long-standing pattern and practice of committing sexual violence against men, the Combs' business had and/or should have had knowledge of Combs' using, such venues, for this unlawful conduct and did nothing to stop it. The Combs' business and defendant Macy's conspired with and enabled Combs to commit the crime of violence motivated by gender by failing to, among other things, protect Plaintiff from an own danger and/or have sufficient policies and procedures in place to prevent sexual assault and/or train their employees on identifying and preventing sexual assault. Given long-standing patterns and practice of committing sexual violence against men, including on-premises owned and operated and/or used by defendants for business purposes, the Combs' corporations had or should have had knowledge that Combs was a danger to Plaintiff and did nothing to stop Combs. The Combs' business and defendant Macy's conspired with and enabled Combs to commit the crime of violence motivated by gender by failing to properly supervise. The Combs' business had knowledge and/or should have had knowledge of Combs' widespread and well-known practice of committing sexual assault and gender-motivated violence, including on-premises owned and operated and/or used for business purposes by defendants and did nothing to stop it. The Combs' operations and corporations and defendant Macy's conspired with and further enabled Combs to commit the crime of violence motivated by gender by actively placing, maintaining, and/or employing Combs in positions of power and authority, despite the fact that they knew and/or should have known that Combs had a widespread and well-known practice of committing sexual assault and gender-motivated violence, including on-premises owned and/or operated by defendants. Combs used his titles and authority conferred by the Combs' business, including as CEO, founder, and chairman to facilitate and perpetuate the violent assault on Plaintiff and to intimidate and force Plaintiff to keep quiet in subsequent years. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that defendant organizational those 1-10 inclusive and other parties not yet identified who have enabled Combs to commit the crime of violence motivated by gender in the ways articulated above and in other ways. As a result of defendant's actions, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be determined that trial and pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of the statute. The legal action has been commenced within the statutory timeframe provided by the two-year look-back window for VG-VMPA claims, see New York City Administrative Code Section 101105, where for Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered against defendant as follows. A. awarding compensatory damages for all physical injuries, emotional distress, psychological harm, anxiety, humiliation, physical and emotional pain, and suffering, family and social disruption, and other harm in an amount to be determined that trial. A. awarding punitive damages in an amount to be determined that trial. A. awarding attorney fees and costs pursuant to any applicable statute or law. A. awarding pre- and post-judgment interest on all such damages, fees, and/or other costs. Attaching any and all defendant's real property and other assets located in the state of New York pursuant to federal rule of Civil Procedure 64 and F. awarding such other further relief as this court may deem just improper. This was dated October 14, 2024 and it was signed by Tony Busby. In this episode, we're going to take a look at the memorandum of law and support of Macey's Jane Doe and his motion to proceed anonymously. Case number 1-24-CV-0777-4 John Doe, Plaintiff, for Sean Combs. Memorandum of Law and Support of Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff John Doe, by and through his undersigned counsel, the Busby Law Firm, hereby files this memorandum of law and support of Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously pursuant to federal rule of Civil Procedure FRCP-10A-Lemotion. Preliminary Statement. This lawsuit involves claims arising from defendant Sean Combs, sexual assault of Plaintiff in 2008. In the complaint, docket number 1, Plaintiff alleges that he was hit surrounded by armed bodyguards of Combs and then sexually assaulted by Combs while in a Macey Stock Room. Because of the egregious nature of what happened, Plaintiff filed his lawsuit under the pseudonym of John Doe. There is no prejudice to Combs or the other defendants if Plaintiff is permitted to pursue his claims as John Doe, and if required by this court counsel for Plaintiff will confidentially disclose his name to counsel for defendants (see Busby declaration at 3). As said 4th in the complaint, Combs has a history of violent and aggressive behavior and has been the subject of numerous civil complaints (see complaints 4-19). Currently, Combs is in jail awaiting criminal trial on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering among other things. Combs and the people within his organizations are dangerous, the argument. It's well settled that it's within the sound discretion of the court to allow a Plaintiff to proceed anonymously in judicial proceedings (see e.g. EW vs NY Blood Center), 213frd, Dover Smith, 189frd, vacated on rehearing and modified in other grounds, 105f.supp2d4045 edny 1999. District Court has discretion to grant an exception to the general requirement of disclosure of the names of parties to permit a Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym. One, Plaintiff should be granted leave to proceed anonymously in this lawsuit due to the sensitive and personal nature of the allegations and the threats of harm. Plaintiff's interest in anonymity outweighs any other factors that would justify disclosing his name when deciding whether Plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the Plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest, in disclosure, and any prejudice to the defendant. See Seal Plaintiff 537f.3d at 189 and 90. In balancing these interests, courts consider several factors including the following non-exhaustive list. One, whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature. Two, whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory, physical, or mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously, or even more critically to innocent parties. 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 disclosing the Plaintiff's identity. Whether the Plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly given his or her age. Whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties. Whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the Plaintiff to press his or her claims anonymously, whether that prejudice, if any, differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court. Whether the Plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept confidential, whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the Plaintiff to disclose his or her identity, whether because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is in a typically weak public interest in knowing the litigants identities, and whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the Plaintiff. ID at 189 and 90. A district court is not required to list each of the factors, or use any particular formula, as long as the court balances the interest at stake in reaching its conclusion. When balancing these interests, these factors favor granting Plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously in this section. A, this litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature. As to the first factor, Plaintiff's claims concern sexual assault and accordingly are highly sensitive and of a personal nature. In similar circumstances, courts have recognized the need to protect the identity of sexual assault victims, C. Doe v. Smith. C. also Doe v. Blue Cross. Recognizing that rape victims are entitled to anonymity. An action need not involve rape or sexual assault, specifically, in order to permit a Plaintiff to proceed as a John Doe. C. Trooper One v. New York State Police. 22 SIV 0 0 8 9 3 LDH. Even though Plaintiff has not offered corroboration for her claimed risks of harm at this stage, in light of the allegation contained in this complaint, and the high profile nature of the case, having the Plaintiff's name in the public domain, especially in the internet age, could subject the Plaintiff to future, unnecessary interrogation, criticism, or psychological trauma, as a result of bringing this case. As a result, the court finds that a chilling effect could result from Plaintiff being required to reveal her identity, which weighs in the favor of permitting Plaintiff to continue anonymously. Here, Combs is a public figure, and the media attention given to this case has been substantial. This is especially so given that this and other civil lawsuits have followed Combs' criminal indictment as well. Given this confluence of events, the media attention given to this action would undoubtedly create a chilling effect on future Plaintiffs in similar circumstances should Plaintiff be forced to disclose his identity, b. Plaintiff's identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical and/or mental harm. The second factor is similarly satisfied in favor of granting anonymity as Plaintiff's identification poses a risk of both physical and mental harm. Plaintiff, here was specifically told during the assault "I'll Kill You" by multiple defendants present and told under the assault by Combs' words to the effect of "Shut Up or I'll Kill You". See, Busby Declaration at 5. These threats were very real, as Combs' three bodyguards were all armed at the time. Further, nearly all of the victims represented by Plaintiff's counsel firm experienced similar threats of violence against either themselves or their loved ones. See, Busby Declaration at 4. If disclosure creates a risk of harm from third parties, disclosure is disfavored. There is significant risk here of physical harm to Plaintiff, and that can't be ignored. In terms of mental harm, Plaintiff experienced, which has described in the complaint are deeply traumatic, and having those experiences played out in a public forum could spark more trauma for Plaintiff. C. Doe, 140, vs. Arc Diocese of Portland in Oregon, explaining that the experience of sexual abuse can be deeply psychologically traumatic, and public knowledge of such abuse can trigger new trauma even years after the fact. Under circumstances in which disclosure of a party's identity could cause further injury and anonymity is routinely permitted. In this case, the filing of the lawsuit has garnered significant attention in the press, and if Plaintiff's identity is revealed to the public, there is little doubt that he would be inundated with unwanted attention from the media that would cause him extreme psychological distress. Plaintiff would certainly experience significant harm if he is forced to reveal his identity to the public. C. Defending combs and other defendants will not be prejudiced by allowing the Plaintiff to pursue his claims anonymously. Protecting Plaintiff by allowing his use of a pseudonym will not prejudice defendants. The complaint sets forth the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims in detail. Combs cannot claim to be prejudiced in discovery here simply because Plaintiff may proceed anonymously, and Combs threw his violent behavior and then threats of violence after the event himself created the very conditions that now drive Plaintiff's need to proceed anonymously in this action. Defending will have access to Plaintiff's discoverable information, and will still have the right to depose or confer with any and all witnesses, conduct full discovery in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and obtain any and all documents. There is neither potential prejudice to the defendant nor a possibility of confusion of identities. Thus allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously will not result in prejudice to the defendants or in any way interfere with policy underlying rule 10a of the federal rules of civil procedure of apprising the parties of the identity of their opponent. As such defendants will suffer, no prejudice, if Plaintiff is to pursue his claims under the John Doe pseudonym. In any event, we're at the earliest stages of this case, defendants next step is to answer or file a motion to dismiss, neither of which requires disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. Any arguments regarding defendant's need for additional information about Plaintiff later in the case are premature and can be dealt with in the ordinary course of litigation as the case proceeds. This court routinely has granted initial leave to file a complaint under a pseudonym while reserving the right to order disclosure of a Plaintiff's identity at a later stage, suggesting that the standard for making the requisite showing is lower at the pleading stage. D. Plaintiff is kept as identity confidential. Further, Plaintiff is taken steps to keep his identity confidential. For example, he has not spoken publicly about the incidents that underlie the causes of the action. The public will not be prejudiced if Plaintiff proceeds anonymously. Party anonymity does not destruct the public's view of the issues joined or the court's performing and resolving them. Doe vs. Stiegel, 653, F.2D, 180, 185, Fifth Circuit, 1981. Plaintiff's suing government was entitled to proceed anonymously. The assurance of fairness preserved by public presence at a trial is not lost when one party's cause is pursued under a fictitious name. Rather, it would seem that the public has a far greater interest in knowing who is accused of sexual abuse and where the abuse is alleged to have occurred than any interest in knowing the specific identity of the victim. In E.W. 213 FRD-108, the court held that the privacy rights of a patient who brought suit against a blood bank after receiving tainted blood transfusion outweighed any First Amendment interest and access to her name. The court noted, "The modern invention of today includes access to court files by those serving the internet. The facts of this case provide no occasion for imposing such an invasion of privacy as a price for litigating a legitimate private complaint. In this case, the sensitive and personal nature of plaintiff's allegations of sexual assault and the likelihood of further psychological injury overcome any presumption of openness. F. Allowing plaintiff to proceed anonymously furthers public interest. The court's favor granting anonymity in these circumstances as allowing plaintiff to proceed anonymously furthers the public interest. As here, the plaintiff in Evans was a victim of sexual assault. In considering the public interest, the court determined that the public generally has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." Plaintiff requests the same consideration here to protect identity and he would suffer significant psychological harm if he is forced to reveal his identity to the public. Conclusion For the reason stated herein, plaintiff respectfully requests at this court grant plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed anonymously in its entirety and all other relief that this court deems just and appropriate. This was dated October 16, 2024 and it was signed by Tony Busby. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.