Diddy's lawyers filed a document that was later stricken from the docket and resubmitted in a more redacted version due to it containing information that characterized things watched on videos that are subject to a protective order. The government and the victim were displeased with the original filing. The defense argues that they complied with the court's order by filing a more redacted version but believe it's unfair and will result in an unfairly polluted jury pool. They also argue that their characterization of the evidence was appropriate and should not be sealed.

The defense's argument that the protective order is too broad is disagreed with, as the protective order is already in place and they should wait for it to change before filing things not under seal. A hearing will likely be held in February to determine if the protective order will be modified, including whether the defense will have digital and physical access to the videos in question. The trial is still expected to be in May, but dealing with digital experts is not a swift process, so it may be delayed.

Watch the full coverage: https://www.youtube.com/live/xOgCXktdUMg?t=1682s

RESOURCES

Previous Diddy Live Stream - https://youtube.com/live/RgYrgSJBYEA

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/
Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices