In a burgeoning legal conflict involving two of the music world's most recognizable figures, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter and Sean "Diddy" Combs, new court documents reveal how Jay-Z's attorney plans to challenge a rape lawsuit brought by an anonymous plaintiff known only as "Jane Doe." The woman alleges that both Combs and Carter assaulted her at a private after-party for the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards when she was just 13 years old. Jay-Z's legal team, led by attorney Alex Spiro, has now detailed a series of legal arguments aimed at dismissing the case.
Spiro contends that the relevant legal statute, under which Jane Doe is suing, did not even exist at the time of the alleged assault. "[The GMVA] cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to plaintiff at the time in question," Spiro wrote in a letter to the court. He notes that the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) was enacted in December 2000-three months after the alleged assault-which he argues means it cannot be applied retroactively. "A contrary conclusion would violate both state and federal due process protections," his filing states.
Beyond the statutory timing issue, Jay-Z's counsel also disputes the idea that this alleged crime happened within the territorial boundaries of New York City. "Jane Doe claimed in her complaint she was driven from Radio City Music Hall to a 'large, white residence with a gated U-shaped driveway' about 20 minutes away," Spiro wrote. He further argues that any property fitting that description-if it even existed at the time-would be located outside the confines of New York City, thereby falling outside the scope of the GMVA.
Spiro has referenced a similar ruling in which a federal judge dismissed a separate, decades-old sexual assault claim filed under the GMVA "lookback" window. In that case, the court concluded that the law did not grant the plaintiff in question standing to sue for allegations from the 1970s. By drawing this parallel, Jay-Z's defense hopes to show that Jane Doe's lawsuit falls short of the statutory requirements.
Meanwhile, Jane Doe's lawyer, Tony Buzbee, disputes the notion that this is purely a technical matter. "These are technical arguments being made and the law is clearly on our side and the side of alleged victims," Buzbee told TMZ. "The law is well settled that we are correct." His stance is that the GMVA revival window remains open to survivors of sexual assault who missed the deadline to file under New York's Child Victims Act in August 2021.
In addition to the statutory clashes, the lawsuit faces scrutiny over apparent inconsistencies in Jane Doe's story. In a recent interview with NBC News, she admitted to possible misidentifications, including a claim that she mingled with musician Benji Madden-who, representatives say, was on tour in another state at the time. "So I have made some mistakes," she conceded. "I may have made a mistake in identifying [Madden]." Still, she insists the core of her claims remains true.
Complicating matters further is the fact that Sean "Diddy" Combs, who is also named in the lawsuit, is fighting a storm of other legal challenges. He faces more than 30 separate sexual assault lawsuits, many of which surfaced after his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura accused him of rape and trafficking in a case settled within 24 hours. Diddy, now 55, was additionally indicted in September on federal charges of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution-allegations he vehemently denies. "Mr. Combs has full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process," his lawyers said in a statement. "He never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone-man or woman, adult or minor."
As for Jay-Z, he has turned to a multi-pronged defense strategy. He first sued the plaintiff's lawyer, accusing him of extortion, and then petitioned the court to accelerate the process. Yet U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres refused to speed up the proceedings, stating, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it." She further allowed Jane Doe to maintain her anonymity "at this exceedingly early stage in this case," acknowledging that naming her publicly could potentially jeopardize her safety or privacy.
In a subsequent letter to the judge, Spiro withdrew his request for a preservation order, saying he had directly served Tony Buzbee with a document retention notice. Buzbee, for his part, appeared unruffled by Spiro's various filings, telling Rolling Stone, "Mr. Spiro likes to send a lot of letters. I don't think any of them merit comment."
Both defendants and the plaintiff now face a potentially lengthy discovery process that promises to sort out some of the key factual disputes-like the location of the alleged assault and whether the statutory window can remain open. Legal experts believe that the court's eventual ruling on these preliminary matters will set the tone for whether Jane Doe's claims gain traction.
For the moment, two of the music industry's most famous names remain under the microscope, tied to a lawsuit whose allegations date back more than two decades. While Combs contends with sweeping accusations that span multiple states and several years, Jay-Z's focus is on a narrower set of procedural arguments and questions of fact. Regardless of whose position prevails in court, the legal wrangling could have lasting repercussions for the high-profile defendants and for any potential expansions to statutes that aim to give survivors a second chance at justice.
