Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The
Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to start taking
a look at Tony Buzby's memorandum of law and opposition
to defend in Sewan Carter's motion for sanctions Case number
one twenty four Dash CV DASH zero seven nine seven
five at Jane Doe plaintiff verse Shawn Colmes Daddy's house recordings,
et cetera, and Sean Carter Plaintiff's memorandum of law and
opposition to defending Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions. Plaintiff enter, Council,
Anthony G. Busby, and the Busby Law Firm together Busby
respectfully submit this memorandum of law and opposition to the
motion of defending Sean Carter under Rule eleven of the
Federal Rules the Civil Procedure to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint
and to award him monetary sanctions against Buzzby preliminary statement.
Carter's motion amounts to an outrageous and unprecedented attempt to
silence of plaintiff, who alleges, at twenty four years ago,
when she was thirteen years old, Defendant Carter in calms
raped her. Carter's celebrity status does not entitle him to
special treatment by the courts, and certainly not on the
mirror say so of his lawyers. As this court is
recognized Cassowitz Declaration example b at four, the Court will
not fast track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it,
relying solely on what his lawyers say are inaccurate details
in plaintiff's account of this horrific assault. Carter asks this
court to ignore the federal rules of civil procedure, and,
as a sanction for what his lawyers falsely say was
Busby's failure to investigate summarily, dismiss plaintiffs well pleaded FAC
in its entirety, which would run roughshod over her right
to take discovery and prove her claims before a jury.
Even assuming our gwendo that plaintiff misremembers details from twenty
four years ago, that is no basis for evading the
requirements of Rule twelve by dismissing her FAC under Rule
eleven based solely on purported factual disputes concerning those details.
This is especially true whereas here the purported factual disputes
concerned details arising solely from the memory of a victim. Here,
a child victim of sexual abuse, which it is well established,
typically causes memory lapses. In fact, Carter's lawyers themselves got
flatly wrong. One of the details they falsely claim undercut
plaintiff's claim, asserting that at the time of her rape,
Carter's co defendant Holmes did not own the house where
the sexual assault may have taken place. In fact, Holmes
did own the house see Infra at pages seventeen and eighteen.
Carter's lawyers purported certainty about what happened. The plaintiff thus
utterly unjustified the NBC report, which they principally rely itself
acknowledge that its purported findings do not necessarily mean the
allegations are false. That acknowledgment alone on under applicable law
removes any possible justification for Rule eleven sanctions here in
any event, when stripped of their salacious rhetoric, Carter's lawyers
challenge plaintiff's allegations and recollection regarding watching the MTV VMA
Awards on a JumboTron, speaking to limousine drivers during the show,
the location of the after party at which he was raped,
speaking to a celebrity at the party, and plaintiff's father
picking her up after she was raped, as shown further below.
None of those purported challenges or meritus, and none of
them come close to proving as they must justify any
Rule eleven sanction, let alone the most drastic sanction of all,
dismissal that Carter did not rape plaintiff, or that, as
Carter's lawyers also falsely say, Buzzby did not sufficiently investigate
and was not permitted to rely on plaintiffs on equivocal
recollection that Carter raped her, among other things. In fact,
there were jumbotrons not far from the VMA show. Carter's
lawyer's assertion that the limousine drivers were cordoned off proves nothing.
That Carter attended one after party does not mean he
did not attend others, and plaintiff's father could very well
simply not have remembered that he picked her up twenty
four years earlier, particularly given that she did not tell
him where she had gone or what had happened to her,
reflecting a reticence also not uncommon among sexual abuse victims.
See INFRA page eleven certainly on this prediscovery record, there
is no basis for assuming the truth of Carter's lawyer's
assertions to the contrary. At this stage of litigation, plaintiff's
allegations must be assumed to be true, and Carter's lawyer's assertions,
if they raise anything at all, at most, raise only
factual disputes that may not be resolved on this prediscovery record.
Carter's lawyers also falsely say Buzzby did not sufficiently investigate
and was not permitted to rely on plaintiffs on equivocal
recollection that Carter raped her. As the courts have made clear,
Rule eleven sanctions will be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances e.
Gluck Corporation, first Rothenhaus two fifty two frd SDNY two
thousand and eight, of which celebrity status is not one.
Here there are no circumstances at all, let alone extraordinary
circumstances justifying sanctions against Busby. In fact, it is out
of judicial concern for encouraging zealous advocacy that the courts
maintain a high bar for establishing Rule eleven violations. But
over the top zealous advocacy is precisely what as This
Court has also recognized Carter's lawyers are engaging in of
which this motion is the latest and worst manifestation. Carter's
lawyer's 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 Cassowitz Declaration
Example BT four. Contrary to Carter's lawyer's baseless assertions, Busby
included the allegation against Carter in the fac only after
an investigation, including numerous interviews of plaintiff and vetting of
the information plaintiff provided that more than satisfied Rule eleven's requirements.
On the other hand, Carter's lawyer's motions, which they filed
even in the face of this courts discouraging them from
doing so. Castowitz Declaration Example b at four, is nothing
more than an improper attempt to intimidate plaintiff and or council,
and is factually and legally meritless. If anyone is violated
Rule eleven, it's Carter and his lawyers who, under Rule
eleven C two should be sanctioned by awarding plaintiff end
or council the attorney fees and costs incurred in having
to respond to their emotion facts background as set fourth
year in and in the accompanying Buzzby declaration, Plaintiff's council's
pre filing investigation was thorough and satisfied Rule eleven. In
early October twenty twenty four, Jane Doe was referred to
Busby and the Buzzby Law firm AVA Law Group, Plaintiff's
co council in this action. While for the referral, attorneys
at Abbe Law investigated the veracity of Plaintiff's allegations, Plaintiff
went through AVA Law's intake process, which the Buzzby firm
understood to include numerous interviews, including an interview by at
least one and possibly more attorneys. Only when the attorneys
at Ava Law were convinced that Plaintiff's allegations were true
did they refer plaintiff to Busby. Two attorneys at the
Buzzby firm interview the plaintiff, fact checked various aspects of
Plaintiff's complaint and revised the complaint prior to filing. Prior
to filing the fac and naming Carter as a defendant,
Mister Busby and other firm attorneys engaged in further rigorous
due diligence to investigate the veracity and legal viability of
plaintiff's claim. The Buzzby Firm's efforts included, among other things,
intensive interviews amounting to cross examination of plaintiff by three
to five attorneys, both alone and in teams, and research
and verification of numerous details in plaintiff's account. The Buzzby
firm ran a background check on plaintiff and retained a
retired police detective to research and confirm other aspects of
plaintiff's account. The Buzzby Firm also conducted research to confirm
the close connection between Carter in Colms, which further bolstered
the conclusion that plaintiff's allegations were plausible, credible, and warranted
legal recourse. Plaintiff alleges that on September seventh of two thousand,
when she was thirteen years old, went to Radio City
Music Hall in New York City to try to attend
the VMA's Castlewitz Declaration example A. As plaintiff did not
have a ticket to the show, she watched the VMAs
on a jumbo tron outside in hopes of talking her
way into either the VMAs or an after party. Plaintiff
also approached and spoke to several limousine drivers parked nearby
the VMAs, one of whom claim to work for COLMS
and told her that Plaintiff fit what Diddy was looking for.
Andy invited her to the after party. Later that evening,
the driver brought plaintiff to an after party at what
plaintiff believed to be a large white residence with a
gated U shaped driveway. Inside the party, plaintiff recognized and
spoke to several celebrities. After accepting a drink from a
member of the white staff, Plaintiff began to feel woozy
and lightheaded, at which point she found an empty bedroom
to rest in. Soon after, colmb's Carter and another individual
entered the room, at which time Colmbs grabbed her and
said you are ready to party id at forty nine
through fifty three. Thereafter, both Carter and Colmbs held Plaintiff
down and raped her. Plaintiff was able to escape after
fighting back, and she ultimately made her way to a
gas station, where she called her father, who then picked
her up. Shortly before dawn b Carter's efforts to intimidate
the Buzzby Firm. Since the initiationation of this lawsuit, more
than two dozen pasted and current employees and clients of
the Buzzby Firm have reported being approached and harassed by
individuals claiming to be investigating Busby, going so far as
to urge the clients to bring meritless lawsuits against Busby,
including regarding his attempts to get justice for Carter and
Colm's victims and offering money to do so. Busby Declaration sixteen.
This has resulted in several frivolous lawsuits against Busby. In
filing in this action, Carter's lawyers have repeatedly referred to
these lawsuits to discredit Busby based on the investigative efforts
made by the Buzzby Firm and others. The Buzzby Firm
is filed several cases for borroitry on behalf of its
clients who were offered money to file acclaim against the
Buzzby Firm. These cases detail the illegal activities of the
investigators and those behind them who are believed to be
Carter through his entertainment company Rock Nation, and Carter's lawyers.
Ideas seventeen and eighteen. All right, we're going to wrap
up right here, and in the next episode we're going
to pick up with c the NBC interview. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're
getting right back to the Tony Buzby and his memorandum
in response to the motion for sanctions See the NBC interview.
On December thirteenth, twenty twenty four, five days after naming
Carter as a defendant, plaintiff sat for an interview with
NBC to account what she called the catastrophic event that
would ruin her life ECF sixty two to one at one.
When questioned by NBC about what it claimed were some
potential inconsistencies in her allegations, plaintiff told NBC that she
stands by her allegations overall. NBC itself acknowledged that the
inconsistencies in her account of the incident alleged to have
happened twenty four years ago do not necessarily mean that
the allegations are false. NBC noted that plaintiff's father purportedly
did not recall picking her up from the gas station
the next morning, as plaintiff alleges, despite it being approximately
a five hour drive. Carter's lawyers strategy is transparent. Instead
of litigating this case on the merits, they have chosen
to attack Busby's ethics and motives. Indeed, Carter's fixation on
Busby is evidenced by his first motion in this matter,
in which Carter names or refers to Busby no fewer
than seventy five times. This inappropriate and unprofessional bullying tactic
persists despite the Court's admonition in its December twenty sixth
order Cassowitz Declaration example BT four. Since Carter's attorney first
appeared on this case seventeen days ago, he has submitted
a litany of letters and motions attempting to impugne the
character of Plaintiff's lawyer, many of them expounding on the
purported urgency of the case. Carter's lawyer's relentless fees yling
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. The Court will not fast
track the judicial process merely because council demands. Plaintiff told
NBC that she stood by her claim that her father
may have misremembered. During the interview, plaintiff told NBC that
musician Benji Madden was one of the celebrities that she
spoke to at the party in question, but NBC determined
that Madden was on tour in the Midwest at the time.
In response, plaintiff explained, Honestly, what is clearest is what
happened to me and the route that I took to
what happened to me. Not all the faces there are
as clear. I may have made a mistake in identifying. Finally,
NBC also reported that Carter and Colmbs had been photographed
at Vima after parties in Manhattan that night, and neither
of the venues of those parties match plaintiff's description of
the house she was raped in. However, NBC also noted
that Colmbs and carters whereabouts for the entire evening are unclear,
and it's not clear what time those images were taken
or if Colmbs and Carter attended any other after parties.
Plaintiff also explained that she didn't know exactly where we
were going or even how long it took. Mister Buzzby
told NBC, we have attempted to confirm the correct location.
Plaintiff has been very specific and detailed about the description
of the venue she says she was taken to. We
won't speculate on whether there was an after party, because again,
she doesn't know that. As Buzzby also stated to NBC,
plaintiff remains fiercely adamant that what she has stated is
true to the best of her memory. Buzzby further explained,
we will always do our best to vet each claim made,
just as we did in this case. Plaintiff also told NBC,
you should always fight for what happened to you. You
should always advocate for yourself and be a voice for yourself.
You should never let what somebody else did ruin your life.
I just hope I can give others the strength to
come forward like I came forward. D procedural history. The
original complaint in this matter was filed anonymously on October twentieth,
twenty twenty four, against Combs and other corporate defendants. Plaintiff
filed emotion to proceed in the litigation anonymously on October
twenty fourth, twenty twenty four, which this Court provisionally granted
on November sixth, twenty twenty four. The complaint was amended
on December eighth, twenty twenty four, to add Carter to
the allegations of sexual assault and abuse. Again, plaintiffs sought
to proceed anonymously. On December ninth, twenty twenty four, Carter,
through his council, filed a motion to deny plaintiff's request
to proceed anonymously. On December thirteenth, twenty twenty four, Carter's
lawyers filed a pre motion letter in forming the court
of their intent to immediately file for sanctions and requested
a shortening of the twenty one day save harbor provision
in Rule eleven. Then, on December eighteenth, twenty twenty four,
Carter's lawyers filed an emergency motion to strike the fac
and dismiss Carter from the action. On December twenty sixth,
twenty twenty four, the Court issued an order admonishing Carter's
lawyers for repeatedly attacking mister Busby's ethics and motives, denying
Carter's emergency motion to strike, and denying Carter's attempt to
shorten the safe harbor period to one day. Since Carter's
attorneys first appeared in this case seventeen days ago, he
has submitted a litany of letters emotions attempting to impugne
the character of plaintiff's lawyer. Carter's lawyers relentless filing of
combative motions containing inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks is inappropriate,
a waste of judicial resources, and attacked it unlikely to
benefit as client. The Court will not fast track the
judicial process merely because Council demands it. Despite the Court
having admonished Carter's lawyers in its December twenty sixth order
that the Court disc courages the filing of their Rule
eleven motion without first seeking leave of court, they nonetheless
did so this motion. In a December thirteenth, twenty twenty
four pre motion letter, Carter's lawyers stated that they intended
to immediately file this motion for sanctions and requested an
expedited briefing schedule from twenty one days to one day.
On December seventeenth, twenty twenty four, mister Busby received a
copy of Carter's Rule eleven motion On December twentieth, twenty
twenty four, mister Busby filed his opposition to Carter's lawyer's
pre motion letter, arguing that any Rule eleven motion on
allegations concerning a child rape victim would be frivolous and
would itself be subject to a Rule eleven motion. In response,
Buzzby pointed Carter's lawyers to authority recognizing that a victim
who was a minor at the time of a sexual
assault could not be expected to have exacting recall and
command of all relevant facts the legal standard, Carter's lawyers
do not come close to establishing that sanctions are warranted here.
Sanctioned may not be imposed unless a particular allegation is
utterly lacking in factual support Ohbrien versus Alexander, quoting Rule
eleven Advisory Committee note the Carlton Group Ltd. Versus Tobin
two thousand and three SDN Y July thirty first, two
thousand and three. Sanction should only be imposed where it
is patently clear that a claim is absolutely no chance
of success, and it is also established that plaintiff's council
is entitled to rely on the representations of their client
without having to assess his credibility. Credibility is solely within
the province of the finder effect Jeffries vers. Rossi, seven
to twenty five, SDNY, two thousand and three. Moreover, whether
to impose a sanction for a Rule eleven B violation
is committed to the sound discretion of the District Court.
New Oriental Pte Ltd. First Mission Critical LLC, sdn Y,
March twenty fourth, twenty twenty two. Because Rule eleven sanctions
represent z a drastic extraordinary remedy, courts seldom issue them,
and then only as a very last resort. Anderson News LLC,
verse Am Media Incorporated, twenty thirteen, SDNY, April twenty third,
twenty thirteen. Furthermore, it's well settled that courts should not
impose Rule eleven sanctions that may discourage council's obligation to
advocate zealously on behalf of its client see Kyobo versus Milson,
five ninety two ft three d seventy eight, Second Circuit,
twenty ten. Rule eleven sanctions are a coersive mechanism available
to trial court judges to enforce ethical standards upon attorneys
appearing before them, while being careful not to reign in
zealous advocacy. Sanderson versus leg Apparel LLC. Twenty twenty four.
Courts maintain a high bar for establishing a Rule eleven violation,
given judicial concern for encouraging zealous advocacy. Finally, courts must
resolve all doubts in favor of the signer of the
bleeding Abuhamed first all Tria Group five to fifteen f.
Dot supp two d. Three eighty four three ninety two
SDNY two thousand and seven, quoting erotic Verst City of Schenectady,
one f. Dot three d. Thirteen forty one thirteen fifty
Second Circuit, nineteen ninety three. The argument under any standard,
and certainly not under the high bar and very last
resort of Rule eleven, there is no basis here to
impose any sanction, let alone dismissal against plaintiff or council.
What Carter's motion amounts to is an outrageous and unprecedented
attempt to silence a plaintiff who alleges, at twenty four
years ago, when she was thirteen years old, Carter and
his co defendant Combs raped her. Carter celebrity status does
not entitle him the special treatment by the courts, and
certainly not on the mere says of his lawyers. As
this Court has recognized, the Court will not fast track
judicial process merely because, as Council demands it, relying solely
on what his lawyers say, principally based on the NBC report,
are inaccurate details In her account of this horrific assault,
Carter asked the Court to ignore federal rules of civil procedure, and,
as a sanction for what his lawyers falsely say was
Buzzby's failure to investigate summarily dismiss plaintiffs well pleaded FAC
in its entirety, which would run rough shot over her
right to take discovery and prove her claims before a jury.
Even assuming ourguendo that plaintiff misremembers details from twenty four
years ago, that is no basis for evading the requirements
of Rule twelve by dismissing or FAC under Rule eleven
based solely on the purported factual disputes concerning those details.
This is especially true where as here the purported factual
disputes arise solely from the memory of a victim. Here,
a child victim of sexual abuse, which it is well established,
typically causes memory lapses see Jim Hopper, PhD. Why incomplete
sexual assault memories can be very reliable psychology Today, September
twenty eight, twenty eighteen. Yes, Peripheral, unless central details can
get distorted more easily than many people realize, But decades
of research have shown that the most central details are
not easy to distort. Doctor Hopper to testify regarding repressed
memory theory and child sexual abuse case. Indeed, it is
for this reason that courts routinely permit expert testimony to
explain various syndromes that impact the victim's memory and other behaviors.
See Lane Verse Am air Lines Incorporated, twenty twenty four,
Eastern District of New York, March twentieth, permitting expert testimony
to explain, inter alia, that victims of sexual assault may
dissociate during the crime or continue to dissociate afterward, and
that these processes also affect the victim's memory of the
traumatic incident, leading to severe memory deficits internal citations and
quotations omitted people vers Spiccola sixteen and Y three D
four forty one, twenty eleven. We have long held evidence
of psychological syndromes affecting certain crime victims to be admissible
for the purpose of explaining behavior that might be puzzling
to a jury, such as delayed reporting, recantation, and inconsistency.
As the courts have made clear, Rule eleven sanctions will
be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances Gluck Corp. Two fifty
two frd, of which celebrity status is not one. Here
there are no circumstances at all, let alone extraordinary circumstances
justifying sanctions against Buzzby. In fact, it is out of
judicial concern for encouraging zealous advocacy that the courts maintain
a high bar for establishing a Rule eleven violation. But
over the top zealous advocacy is precisely what this Court
has also recognized Carter's lawyers are engaging in of which
this motion is the latest and worst manifest. Carter's lawyer's
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 as client Cassowitz declaration example
BT four. Contrary to Carter's lawyer's inflammatory and ad hominem attacks,
Buzzby included the allegations against Carter in the fac only
after an investigation, including numerous interviews of plaintiff and vetting
of the information Plaintiff provided that more than satisfied Rule
eleven's requirements. On the other hand, Carter's lawyer's motion, which
they filed in the face of this courts discouraging them
from doing so, is nothing more than an improper attempt
to intimidate plaintiff ender council and is factually and legally meritless.
If anyone is violated Rule eleven, it's Carter's lawyers who
should be sanctioned by awarding plaintiff and her council the
attorney fees and costs incurred in having to respond to
their emotion. Are going to wrap up right here, and
in the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we
left off, and that's with Part I. Carter's lawyers do
not and cannot show that Buzzby's investigation was inadequate. All
of the information that goes with this episode can be
found in the description box.