The legal battle over the sexual assault lawsuit filed against Garth Brooks is already heating up.
Of course by now everybody already knows that a week ago, a lawsuit was filed in California against Garth by his former makeup artist and hairstylist, identified only as Jane Roe, accusing the country singer of rape and sexual assault.
Garth has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them “behavior that I am incapable of,” and blasting the lawsuit as an attempt at extorting him out of “millions of dollars.”
And as it turns out, the “Friends In Low Places” singer had actually filed an anonymous lawsuit against his accuser back in September in a Mississippi court, in an attempt to prevent her allegations from becoming public.
In that lawsuit, which was initially filed under the name John Doe, Garth asked a court for a judgment declaring her allegations untrue and an injunction preventing her from “further publicizing” her claims against him, and also compensation and punitive damages for the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” and defamation.
Garth had asked for permission from the court in Mississippi to proceed under a pseudonym, which his accuser opposed. But before the court in Mississippi had ruled on his motion, Jane Roe filed her lawsuit in California, making her allegations public and exposing Garth as the celebrity in the Mississippi lawsuit.
In response to the lawsuit being filed in California, Garth returned to court in Mississippi this week and withdrew his motion to proceed under a pseudonym, since at this point it was moot anyway. But he also filed an amended complaint which publicly named his accuser, revealing her identity to the public for the first time.
And naturally, her attorneys weren’t happy.
In a statement blasting the move yesterday, attorneys for his accuser promised to seek sanctions against Garth for publicly naming the previously-unidentified woman:
“Garth Brooks just revealed his true self. Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately.”
And true to their word, that’s what they did.
In a motion filed yesterday, attorneys for the woman asked the court to not only seal or redact Garth’s amended complaint to remove her name, but also asked the court to impose sanctions on the country singer for what her attorneys called “appalling and malicious behavior.”
The filing accuses Garth of naming his accuser out of retaliation for her filing her lawsuit against him, claiming they had no idea that he planned to reveal her identity before the amended complaint was filed. And she also accuses Garth of the “unlawful disclosure of a rape victim’s identity” while asking the court to impose sanctions on the singer:
“This egregious conduct must not be condoned, and Plaintiff and his counsel shall be responsible for penalties imposed by this Court.”
Additionally, the woman also threatens to file a counterclaim against Garth for any “intentional torts” he committed by revealing her identity.
The move to reveal her name publicly is one that, according to experienced attorneys with expertise in high-profile cases like this, carries some serious risks.
Duncan Levin, a former defense attorney for Harvey Weinstein, says it was a bold strategy from Garth Brooks and his legal team to name the accuser. He says the hardball move could backfire in the event that Garth doesn’t have an ironclad case:
“On the one hand, filing a defamation suit signals that Brooks is taking an aggressive stance to protect his reputation. This can sometimes work in favor of public figures who believe they are falsely accused as it forces the accuser to provide evidence supporting their claims.
However, naming the accuser could backfire, particularly if the accusation is credible or if the accuser gains sympathy from the public. It could also be seen as an attempt to intimidate or dissuade other potential accusers from coming forward, which would draw criticism. Legally, Brooks will need to prove that the allegations are false and have caused him reputational damage, a high bar in defamation cases.”
He goes on to say that Garth’s team of lawyers could be super confident in their defense strategy, and confident that they’ll be able to prove Garth’s innocence, however, the retaliatory move also has the potential to damage Garth’s reputation even further.
He continues:
“It’s possible that Brooks or his legal team feels confident in their defense, which might explain why they are willing to be so aggressive in their approach. Filing a countersuit suggests that they believe they can not only defeat the accusations but also demonstrate that they are baseless. Still, this is a double-edged sword. If Brooks doesn’t have a strong defense, it could appear retaliatory and damage his reputation even further.
This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. If Brooks wins the defamation suit, it could clear his name in the court of public opinion. But if the countersuit backfires, it could fuel negative public perception and expose him to greater legal jeopardy.”
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it all plays out – but one thing’s for sure, it’s going to be a nasty fight.
