The True Crime Tapes

In a ruling issued on May 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed anonymously in a civil case against Sean Combs. The plaintiff alleges that Combs, along with possibly one or more associates, raped her during a party in Las Vegas in 2014. While the court had initially granted her provisional anonymity on November 4, 2024—pending the defendants' formal appearance—Judge Broderick reassessed the matter once the case progressed and found that the balance of interests no longer favored anonymity.


Judge Broderick concluded that allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously would unduly prejudice the defendants, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations and the public profile of the accused. He also emphasized the broader public interest in transparency, especially in a high-profile case involving a well-known public figure like Combs. The court found that these considerations outweighed the plaintiff’s privacy concerns and interest in remaining anonymous, leading to the denial of her request. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to open proceedings when they intersect with matters of public accountability and legal fairness.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:




gov.uscourts.nysd.630246.62.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.

Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In a sealed letter submitted to Judge Subramanian, legal counsel for Jane Doe—referred to as Victim-2 in the Sean Combs federal criminal case—opposed a media request filed on May 12, 2025, by attorneys Robert Balin and Alexandra Perloff-Giles. That request, made on behalf of several news organizations, sought courtroom access to view “sexually explicit and sensitive” audiovisual exhibits that are set to be shown to the jury but not played in open court. Jane Doe’s counsel argued against the release, emphasizing the highly personal and traumatic nature of the content and citing her court-granted right to proceed anonymously. The letter underscores the importance of safeguarding Jane Doe’s dignity and privacy during trial proceedings that already carry significant emotional weight for her.

The opposition also stresses the unique harm that could arise from permitting the press to view such sensitive materials, especially given their graphic and intimate nature. Jane Doe’s legal team asserts that allowing the media to access these exhibits, even if only while they are played for the jury, would essentially nullify the court’s protective measures and could lead to secondary dissemination—further traumatizing the victim and potentially undermining the integrity of the trial. The letter frames the issue not as a matter of transparency, but one of protecting victims’ rights, ensuring due process, and upholding the court’s earlier rulings that prioritized the safety and anonymity of individuals involved in the case.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.350.0.pdf

In Case No. 1:24-cv-08812, filed on November 19, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, alleges that in October 2001, he was lured to New York City under the pretense of auditioning for a role as a police officer in a music video. After coordinating with a female casting director, he traveled to Manhattan, booking a room at the Hotel Newton on the Upper West Side. The following day, he was directed to a suite near the top of a hotel located on the south side of Central Park.

The plaintiff claims that upon arrival, he was offered a Diet Coke that tasted unusual. Subsequently, he began to feel disoriented and lost consciousness. He alleges that he awoke to find Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulting him, with Combs's bodyguard restraining his arms. After the assault, the plaintiff asserts that he fled the scene. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault, emphasizing a pattern of such behavior by Combs over the years, purportedly facilitated by various individuals and entities.

(commercial at 8:26)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.632028.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 1:24-cv-08812, filed on November 19, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, alleges that in October 2001, he was lured to New York City under the pretense of auditioning for a role as a police officer in a music video. After coordinating with a female casting director, he traveled to Manhattan, booking a room at the Hotel Newton on the Upper West Side. The following day, he was directed to a suite near the top of a hotel located on the south side of Central Park.

The plaintiff claims that upon arrival, he was offered a Diet Coke that tasted unusual. Subsequently, he began to feel disoriented and lost consciousness. He alleges that he awoke to find Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulting him, with Combs's bodyguard restraining his arms. After the assault, the plaintiff asserts that he fled the scene. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault, emphasizing a pattern of such behavior by Combs over the years, purportedly facilitated by various individuals and entities.

(commercial at 8:26)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.632028.1.0.pdf