Garth is fighting back.
The legal fight over sexual assault allegations against Garth Brooks has already been a nasty one.
It all became public back on October 3, when a former makeup artist and hairstylist for the country music star filed a lawsuit in a California court accusing Garth of sexual assault and rape.
The “Friends In Low Places” singer has vehemently denied the allegations. And in fact, before the lawsuit in California was even filed, Garth even filed an anonymous lawsuit in Mississippi seeking an injunction preventing his accuser from making her allegations public.
In that lawsuit, which was initially filed under the name John Doe and naming the woman only as “Jane 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 for both parties 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 last 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 motion filed last week, they 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.”
But Garth is fighting back.
In a new filing last week, the country singer (well, his attorneys) claimed that the woman has “already agreed” to use her name in the case, and that he’s done nothing wrong by identifying her publicly.
(And just to get this out of the way: We’ve made the decision not to use her name right now. It’s out there, so if you’re really interested it’s not exactly hard to find, but we’re going to wait for the court to make their decision before identifying her here).
Garth claimed that based on the description of “Jane Roe” in her California lawsuit, “internet sleuths and country music industry insiders” had already identified the woman, because she is the only person who fits the description she provided. He also included with his filing a profile of his accuser from a magazine in her home state of Mississippi, which identified her as “a leading celebrity makeup artist” and features a picture of her with Garth and Trisha.
And he also points to previous filings from the woman, in which she opposed Garth’s request for both parties to proceed under pseudonyms, as agreeing to be publicly identified. In one filing, the woman asserted that no basis existed to “conceal the identities of he and Ms. Roe.” And she also previously told the court in a filing that she “is willing to proceed using her name here if this Court believes that is necessary” to deny Garth’s motion.
The two sides were in court for the first time on Friday, arguing over whether the woman’s name should be sealed and whether sanctions should be imposed against Garth.
Neither Garth nor his accuser were in court, but attorneys for both sides presented their case, with Garth’s lawyer David Kaufman arguing that it was actually his accuser who made the dispute public:
“They wanted a public fight, and they got one.”
But Jeanne Christensen, attorney for his accuser, claims that Garth had two months notice before he was named in the California case, while he provided no notice before naming her in the Mississippi lawsuit. She also claims that Garth revealed her name “purely out of spite” and accused the country singer of attempting to intimidate her from exercising her First Amendment rights.
The judge didn’t rule on the issue, but ordered the woman’s attorney to file an affidavit containing a timeline of events in the case by today. Garth’s attorneys will then have a chance to respond if they wish at a Zoom conference tomorrow, while attorneys for his accuser will have until Friday to file a motion to dismiss the case.
It’s going to be a long and nasty fight, but all we can hope for is that justice prevails at the end of the day.
