A New York federal judge has ruled that the woman accusing Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs of raping her at an MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) after-party in 2000 may remain anonymous for now. Judge
Analisa Torres issued the decision on Thursday, noting that while Jane Doe’s anonymity is preserved for the moment, her identity may be required to be disclosed if the case progresses further.
Judge Torres stated in the court document, obtained by Fox News Digital, that there is “substantial interest” from the public regarding the case.
Celebrate Trump’s Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!
She emphasized, however, that the decision on anonymity could be revisited later.
The ruling also addressed Jay-Z’s legal team, particularly his lawyer, Alex Spiro.
Torres criticized Spiro’s courtroom tactics, stating that his “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.”
She further added, “The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it.”
NEW: New York judge shreds Jay Z for trying to quash the lawsuit where he is accused of r*ping a 13-year-old girl.
Judge Analisa Torres sided with the alleged victim, ‘Jane Doe,’ in her request to remain anonymous.
Torres condemned Jay-Z and his lawyer Alex Spiro for trying to… pic.twitter.com/AfCxUhqtpB
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 27, 2024
Earlier in December, Jay-Z, whose legal name is Shawn Carter, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
He also requested that Jane Doe not be allowed to proceed anonymously.
The lawsuit, filed by Texas-based attorney Tony Buzbee on behalf of Jane Doe, alleges that Jay-Z and Diddy raped her when she was 13 years old.
In his motion, Spiro characterized the lawsuit as part of a “sprawling extortion saga — a saga whose aim is base and measured in dollars.”
Buzbee responded to Spiro’s statements on Thursday, telling Fox News Digital, “The repeated attempts to discredit and smear the advocate for alleged victims is a failing strategy.”
Spiro has publicly denied the accusations against Jay-Z, calling them “provably, demonstrably false.”
Speaking at Roc Nation’s headquarters in New York on December 16, Spiro cited inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s account, which were highlighted in a recent NBC News interview with the Alabama woman who remains unnamed.
“These inconsistencies are not minor,” Spiro said, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.
“If you look at the time, it’s not possible this could happen.”
Spiro elaborated, stating, “When people make up an account, whether intentionally or their mind is blank, they can always get that core part of the story right… But they’re always going to mess up the details. When something isn’t real, when something doesn’t happen, you’re going to get the details wrong because you weren’t really there.”
He added, “[This was] not possible. It’s because this never happened.”
According to Spiro, Jay-Z is deeply troubled by the situation. “He’s upset that somebody would be allowed to do this, would be allowed to make a mockery of the system like this,” Spiro said.
“He’s upset that this distracts and dissuades real victims from coming forward. He’s upset that his kids and family have to deal with this. And he should be upset.”
JUST IN: U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rules an Alabama woman accusing Pop Star Jay-Z of r*pe when she was 13 can proceed anonymously, for now, and Judge Torres scolded Jay Z’s lawyer for his “relentless filing of combative motions.”
“Carter’s lawyer’s relentless filing of… pic.twitter.com/80T61Q90tJ
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) December 27, 2024
As the case continues, Jane Doe’s anonymity and the lawsuit’s merits remain key points of contention.
While Jay-Z’s legal team pushes for dismissal, the court’s scrutiny of the evidence and claims will likely play a pivotal role in determining the case’s trajectory.
Sean “Diddy” Combs has not publicly addressed the lawsuit, and his legal representation has yet to comment on the case.
.
