Judge rules civil suit against Sean 'DD' Combs can't proceed under pseudonym CNN

A federal judge says a woman who accused Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual assault cannot pursue her case under a pseudonym after finding the rapper has the right to self-defense.

“The fundamental question is whether the plaintiff has a 'substantial privacy' interest that 'exceeds the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,'” Judge Mary Kay Viscocil wrote in an opinion Wednesday, adding, “Defendants have a right to protect themselves, including from plaintiffs' investigations. , and the public has a right to know who is using their courts.”

A Tennessee woman filed a Jane Doe lawsuit against Combs and others earlier this month, alleging that he raped her in 2004 when she was 19 years old.

The Doe case is one of more than a dozen filed since Combs' arrest in September on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy by John or Jane Doe, represented by the same attorneys. Cases are filed separately and before different judges, But this judgment may affect a number of those cases

Judge Viscocil ruled that the woman must file the case in her name by November 13 or the case will be dismissed.

“We don't have an official statement because the verdict speaks for itself,” Combs' reps said.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied any wrongdoing.

CNN has reached out to representatives of the plaintiffs for comment.

Attorneys for the woman argued in court filings that the case should be allowed to proceed because of the woman's fear that Combs would physically harm her.

The judge disagreed.

“As plaintiff's own submissions make clear, however, Combs has had no contact with plaintiff for nearly twenty years since the alleged rape and Combs is currently in custody pending trial,” the judge wrote. “As such, counsel did not identify any present threat of physical harm to the plaintiff,” he said. In the lawsuit, the judge noted that there was no allegation that Combs had threatened the woman to go public with her allegations.

The judge ruled that “public humiliation” was not enough to warrant anonymity and pointed to multiple lawsuits against Combs under their real names.

“The court appreciates that Combs is a public figure and, therefore, would face public scrutiny if the plaintiff proceeds in his own name. Courts are not indifferent to the potential toll of such scrutiny on a litigant. However, plaintiffs' interest in avoiding public scrutiny or even embarrassment does not outweigh both Combs' and the public's interest in the “traditional and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,'' the judge wrote.

The judge said Combs was entitled to know her identity in order to investigate her claims.

“Counsel's assertion that defendants do not need to know plaintiff's identity in order to file an answer violates the ad hoc nature of discovery,” he wrote.