The thesis of the ongoing courtroom fight between music industry powerhouse Sean “Diddy” Combs and Miami lawyer Ariel Mitchell has just taken a 360-degree turn. Mitchell, who is being sued by Diddy for $50 million in damages over a defamation claim, has hit back by filing papers attempting to get the case thrown out, arguing that not only did she do nothing wrong, but that Diddy’s image is irreparable.
A NewsNation interview in January, in which Mitchell appeared with Courtney Burgess, is at the root of the lawsuit. During the segment, Burgess made shocking allegations that the late Kim Porter gave him flash drives with footage of A-listers engaged in sexually explicit encounters with minors. He also said he had 54 pages of what was purported to be Porter’s memoir, a document that her children have since rejected as not being genuine.
Check out this article: Star Brim Faces Heat After Mocking Disabled Fan’s Letter
Diddy’s lawyers wasted no time fixing their crosshairs on Mitchell, claiming that the fact she was on that segment and didn’t immediately push back on it offered credibility to the “outrageous lies” and posed direct harm to the mogul’s reputation. But Mitchell isn’t backing down. Her lawyer, Steven A. Metcalf II, has mounted a spirited defense based on legal precedent and constitutional rights. Metcalf also states that Mitchell didn’t make any defamatory statements herself, but was performing her duties as an attorney, offering legal analysis or preparing for possible litigation. He added that associating her with the allegations of Burgess is “a First Amendment principle separating actual speech from associative liability.”
Metcalf made the absolutely stunning claim that whatever damage there was to Diddy’s reputation had taken place years before Mitchell took to the airwaves. “Photos and videos were produced,” he wrote, “leading to a federal subpoena for this specific material.” He has added that the fact that the government has essentially acknowledged its role in confiscating this material is evidence that it really does exist, hinting that Mitchell was on to something, and if the accusations were indeed false, there was no reason for him to find them credible. Mitchell’s camp is now pressing for complete dismissal of the lawsuit for defamation, arguing that the suit is legally unfounded and was filed in bad faith to stifle criticism. Whether the judge will take well to this sort of thing is another matter. Diddy’s character was under attack long before her words reached the courtroom.
