Whoops…
Garth Brooks is pointing to a mistake from the woman accusing him of sexual assault as proof that her request to remain anonymous should be denied by the courts.
The oversight from the woman comes as the two sides battle in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court ruled that she could not proceed in the litigation under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” and that the country star was entitled to use her real name in the litigation.
If you’ll recall, the litigation actually consists of two cases: A lawsuit filed in California by a former hairdresser for the country accusing him of raping and sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions; and a lawsuit filed by Garth against the same woman a few days before she filed her complaint, attempting to block his accuser from filing her lawsuit against him, denying her allegations and accusing her of a “shakedown.”
Garth had used pseudonyms for both parties when filing his case in Mississippi, identifying himself and his accuser only as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe” to prevent their identities from becoming public. But when she filed her lawsuit in California, she used Garth’s name in the complaint, which obviously made her allegations against him public – while protecting her own identity.
After he was named in the court filings, Garth went back and amended his complaint in the Mississippi case to include the names of BOTH parties, arguing that his accuser had forfeited her right to remain anonymous and proceed under a pseudonym because she had included identifying information in the California case.
This obviously upset the woman, who asked the judge in Mississippi to sanction Garth and to issue a ruling allowing her to remain anonymous and continue to use “Jane Roe” in court filings instead of her real name.
But last September, Judge Henry Wingate denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym and also denied her request for sanctions against Garth – which would pave the way for the singer to publicly name his accuser in court documents.
In his order, the judge ruled that the woman had already been publicly identified on several occasions, including when Garth used her name in court filings, online through publicly available information, and inadvertently in court filings from the woman herself. The court found that, basically, the cat was already out of the bag while also pointing out that the woman was not in favor of sealing the record in the case until her identity became public:
“Ms. Roe was more concerned with airing Mr. Doe’s identity to the public than preserving her own confidentiality.”
The court also pointed out that when he filed his case in Mississippi, Garth had filed a motion asking permission for BOTH of the parties to remain anonymous – but before the judge could rule on that motion, the woman filed her California lawsuit and named Garth as the defendant, outing him publicly and rendering the issue moot. It was only then that Garth named her in the Mississippi suit, which he had not done to that point.
Obviously the woman wasn’t happy with the court’s ruling, and has since filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which bring us to the latest developments.
Both sides are in the process of filing their respective briefs to argue their positions. The court allowed the woman to redact their filings to protect personal information – but apparently when attorneys filed the woman’s brief and accompanying exhibits, they inadvertently failed to redact some personally identifying information.
According to a motion filed by her attorneys, which has been reviewed by Whiskey Riff, requesting the opportunity to correct their mistake:
“Unfortunately, counsel for Appellant inadvertently failed to redact personally identifying information from the record excerpts that were filed in conjunction with her opening brief.”
Well needless to say, Garth’s legal team took notice of the mistake, and quickly pointed it out in their own brief while arguing that her failure to protect her own identity should be a reason for the court to deny her request to remain anonymous:
“Ms. Roe revealed her own identity in the very appeal where she seeks anonymity. On May 20, 2026, Ms. Roe filed Record Excerpts containing her and Mr. Doe’s full legal names.”
He also pointed out the irony in the fact that she failed to protect her own anonymity in an appeal over whether or not she can remain anonymous:
“The Record Excerpts have remained publicly available on this Court’s docket for more than a month, and Ms. Roe has taken no steps to seal or redact them.
Even if inadvertent, Mr. Doe respectfully submits that this manifest anonymity waiver—in an appeal over anonymity and in violation of the sealing order Ms. Roe alone requested—is itself grounds to reject Ms. Roe’s appeal.”
(Whiskey Riff has chosen to wait for the court’s ruling on the issue before using her name publicly).
The appeals court has yet to rule on the issue, so we’ll have to wait and see whether or not the mistake could cause her to lose her appeal and allow Garth to reveal her identity.
