CNN
—

The judges have rejected 2 Jane Does’ efforts to anonymously file sexual assault lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs in rulings that highlight the challenges of using pseudonyms and, some plaintiffs’ lawyers say, could have a chilling effect on future actions.

Two federal judges overseeing Jane Does’s lawsuit against Combs rejected their efforts to continue anonymously, saying that in both cases the women had not established that their concerns about harm outweighed Combs’ right to know his accuser and to defend himself or the public interest in open trials. . If the women want their lawsuits to proceed, the judges ruled, they will have to file them under their real names.

“This almost certainly means that fewer complainants will be willing to come forward, including those with the most traumatic experiences. It’s the survivors who typically fear being identified the most for obvious reasons,” said Roberta Kaplan, an attorney who represented E. Jean Carroll in her lawsuit. sexual abuse trial against Donald Trump.

Lawyers say anonymity is discussed with clients, who may not initially realize they may have to ultimately reveal their names in court and open themselves to public scrutiny, leading to the abandonment of certain affairs.

But that’s not always a deterrent: Combs’ former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, filed a lawsuit accusing Combs of abuse last November. THE the matter has been settled the next day, and over the past year, nearly a dozen others have filed lawsuits on their behalf.

Additionally, laws such as New York’s Adult Survivors Actwhich gave alleged victims a look-back period to bring charges, gave rise to numerous cases, as well as a change in perception of sexual abuse that followed the #MeToo movement.

“I don’t think it should have a deterrent effect, because if there are good reasons to proceed under a pseudonym, then they will satisfy one of those factors,” said Imran Ansari, a lawyer who represents the disgraced Hollywood producer. Harvey Weinstein in numerous civil suits.

Judges weigh John or Jane Does’s right to privacy against the courts’ constitutional presumption of publicity and the accused’s right to defend themselves. Court decisions over the years have established a series of factors to consider.

Lawyers say that when minors are involved, courts often grant them anonymity. It is also generally permitted when a John or Jane Doe can establish, through medical documentation, that they will suffer harm. However, public control alone is often not enough.

A New York State judge this week hearings ordered to consider whether to allow many of John Doe’s trials against Combs to proceed anonymously. In one case, the doe alleged he was 17 when he was forced to perform sex acts with Combs during auditions for the MTV competition series “Making the Band.” In another case, Doe alleges he was 10 years old when he was assaulted during an “audition” with Combs. Combs denied the allegations in both lawsuits in a statement to CNN.

But the bar remains high.

In February, Judge Jessica Clarke rejected the request of a woman who claimed she was gang raped by Combs and others when she was 17, writing: “The Court was unable to find a case in this circuit – and plaintiff has not identified one – with similar allegations in which a plaintiff’s opposing motion to proceed anonymously was granted.

“When a plaintiff asserts that disclosure will harm that person’s mental health, courts in this circuit seek corroboration from medical professionals who detail the risk to the plaintiff. Here, Doe failed to identify the particular harm that revealing her identity would cause. She only states generally and without corroboration that she will experience trauma if her identity is revealed and she becomes the center of media attention,” Clarke wrote.

Doe’s attorney could not be reached for comment Thursday.

“To strengthen his claim, the plaintiff would like to have a supporting psychiatric report indicating that publication of the plaintiff’s name would cause him irreparable harm,” said Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer who has filed dozens of abuse lawsuits against the plaintiff. clergy. Without anonymity, he said: “It can have a deterrent effect because the psychological damage suffered by a victim is eternal. A victim will feel like they have been re-victimized to the point that they cannot bear to have their name made public.

Most recent decisionreleased Wednesday by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, involved a Tennessee woman who claimed she was raped by Combs in 2004, when she was 19 years old.

The judge rejected Doe’s request to remain anonymous, stating, “the plaintiff has not met the burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to the exceptional remedy of anonymity” while concluding that “the defendants have the right to defend themselves, including investigating the complainant, and people have the right to know who is using their courts.

Tony Buzbee, who represents more than a dozen of Combs’ accusers, including this Doe, told CNN: “We have great respect for the court and its decisions.” Our job as these victims’ advocates is to protect their safety as best we can, and that’s what we were trying to do by filing cases anonymously. Anonymous or not, this matter will continue, period.

In 2020, the same judge blocked a sexual assault trial against Weinstein from proceeding anonymously.

Jane Doe sued Weinstein in August 2020, alleging that he raped her during the Cannes Film Festival in 2007, when she was 22. Weinstein’s lawyers argued that he had a “right to know his accuser.”

Judge Vyskocil denied Doe’s request to proceed under a pseudonym and ordered the plaintiff to refile the complaint using her real name by November. The doe abandoned her suit. His lawyer could not be reached for comment Thursday.