Jay-Z Fires Back in Court at ‘Extortionate’ Diddy Rape Lawsuit, Says Accuser Must…

Jay-Z Fires Back in Court at ‘Extortionate’ Diddy Rape Lawsuit, Says Accuser Must Reveal Her Name

Less than a day after the shocking case was filed, the superstar says his accuser cannot hide behind a pseudonym while she “smears” his name in public..

Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) has filed his first response in court to a lawsuit accusing him of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 alongside Sean “Diddy” Combs, calling the case “extortionate” and arguing that the accuser should be required to litigate such “heinous allegations” under her real name

In a motion filed less than a day after the shocking case was filed, Carter’s attorneys called the accusations “patently false” and part of “campaign of extortion” by attorney Tony Buzbee, a Texas attorney who has filed a slew of cases against Combs and threatened dozens more.

Allowing Buzbee’s clients to proceed under “Jane Doe” pseudonyms is a just a tactic in a “scheme” to extract settlements from innocent celebrities by falsely tying them to Diddy, Carter’s attorneys argue in the new filing — effectively allowing the attorney to “smear defendant’s good name” while his clients “hide beyond the shield of anonymity.”

“Mr. Carter should not have to defend himself in the brightest of spotlights against an accuser who hides in complete darkness,” writes Jay-Z’s attorney Alex Spiro. “Mr. Carter deserves to know the identity of the person who is effectively accusing him — in sensationalized, publicity-hunting fashion — of criminal conduct, demanding massive financial compensation, and tarnishing a reputation earned over decades.”

Plaintiffs in sexual abuse lawsuits can sometimes proceed under pseudonyms if there’s a strong risk of retaliation, but such treatment is granted in only rare cases. Already, in several of the other civil actions
filed against Combs, judges have required Doe accusers to disclose their names, with one ruling that anonymity is “the exception and not the rule” and another citing the “fundamental unfairness” of allowing only one side to remain hidden.

In his filing on Monday, Carter’s attorneys cite those earlier rulings and argue that Buzbee and his accuser have not met any of the key requirements to litigate her case under a “Doe” pseudonym. In technical terms, he wants the judge to force her to reveal her name, or dismiss the case entirely.

“Mr. Carter now is entitled to defend himself against these allegations with benefit of all the protections and mechanisms available to defendants,” Spiro writes in Monday’s motion. “To be sure, attorney Buzbee’s game has been to prevent Mr. Carter from defending himself while punching below the belt. Today, that game is at an end and Mr. Carter’s defense has begun — starting with plaintiff’s unmasking.”

In an email to Billboard on Monday, Buzbee responded to Carter’s motion by saying, “I’m not doing a play by play commentary to every pleading filed in court. We will respond in due course.”