Dickerson-Neal v. Combs: Plaintiff Moves to Compel Interrogatory Answers and Documents, and for Leave to Depose Combs
N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County · Index No. 952341/2023 · Filed Oct. 28, 2026
In the matter of Joi Dickerson-Neal v. Sean Combs a/k/a “P. Diddy,” Index No. 952341/2023, Dickerson-Neal has moved Justice Lyle E. Frank to compel Combs to answer interrogatories and produce documents, and for leave to depose Combs, who is incarcerated. The motion is set for submission on Nov. 18, 2026, with no appearance required.
Background
The amended complaint alleges that in 1991 Combs raped Dickerson-Neal, filmed it, and showed the video to others. The memorandum states that Combs has since been convicted on two federal charges and sentenced to more than four years in federal prison (ECF No. 46 at 2).
The Motion
Dickerson-Neal asks for an order under CPLR § 3124 compelling responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 10 and 15–19, sworn answers to both sets of interrogatories, and documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 9 and 11, and modified Nos. 12–16, plus leave under CPLR § 3106(c) to depose Combs (ECF No. 45 at 1).
Unsworn Answers
The memorandum argues that Combs’s responses to both sets of interrogatories “are signed only by counsel and contain no verification or sworn statement from Defendant.” It cites CPLR § 3133(b), which requires an individual party to answer interrogatories “in writing under oath” (ECF No. 46 at 5). The responses, dated July 10, 2026, are signed by Jonathan D. Davis (ECF No. 58 at 15).
Interrogatories 3, 10 and 15
No. 3 asks about Combs’s involvement in recording sexual encounters, “excluding a description of the sexual acts themselves.” Combs’s response objects that it is “overbroad, unduly burdensome, highly intrusive, harassing,” and an invasion of privacy (ECF No. 58 at 7–8). The memorandum answers that the amended complaint alleges Combs recorded the assault “as was his practice,” and that a protective order addresses privacy (ECF No. 46 at 6).
No. 10 asks Combs to identify drugs he purchased, possessed, was given or used from Nov. 1, 1990, through Apr. 30, 1991. Combs objects that it “appears designed to elicit character evidence” (ECF No. 46 at 7). Dickerson-Neal contends the window is tied to the allegation that Combs drugged Dickerson-Neal (ECF No. 46 at 7–8).
No. 15 asks about materials the federal government seized from Combs’s residences; the memorandum states Combs did not respond to a narrower version offered July 31, 2026 (ECF No. 46 at 8).
Interrogatories 16–19
Combs objected to Nos. 16–19 partly under the 25-interrogatory limit in 22 NYCRR § 202.20. The memorandum states that Combs did not show his count, and asks in the alternative for leave to exceed the limit (ECF No. 46 at 9).
No. 17 asks for the factual basis of any contention that Combs did not sexually assault Dickerson-Neal. Combs’s response says it seeks “a comprehensive trial narrative” (ECF No. 59 at 8). The memorandum argues Combs can state under oath what the contention is, even if it rests only on recollection (ECF No. 46 at 10).
No. 19 concerns any contention that Dickerson-Neal was falsely told a recording existed. Combs’s answer identifies “Charlucci and Chanee.” The memorandum calls that incomplete and says defense counsel earlier identified three witnesses (ECF No. 46 at 12).
Documents and Deposition
The requests cover drug-related documents for the same window (No. 9), non-privileged documents relating to the action (No. 11), recording documents (No. 12), and government-related materials, including any informant role (Nos. 13–16). For Nos. 13–16 the memorandum states Combs did not answer narrowed versions offered July 31 (ECF No. 46 at 15–17).
On the deposition, CPLR § 3106(c) provides that “[t]he deposition of a person confined under legal process may be taken only by leave of the court.” The memorandum argues Combs’s testimony is essential, and that he is the only defendant (ECF No. 46 at 4, 18).
The Discovery Record
Combs served responses July 10, 2026; a meet-and-confer followed Aug. 17. Prom’s affirmation states that defense counsel David Russell argued Dickerson-Neal had not yet served responses to Combs’s requests, and Dickerson-Neal’s counsel replied that responses would be served “immediately after the Court entered the Protective Order.” Defense counsel said the defense would be amenable to revisiting the process after that; the affirmation states no supplementation has followed (ECF No. 62 at 1–2).
On Aug. 14 defense counsel wrote, “The client has been in solitary” (ECF No. 55 at 2). On Sept. 11 defense counsel wrote, “I am working on it. This is not easy with a client in jail” (ECF No. 56 at 2). The memorandum states a Sept. 16 email from Dickerson-Neal’s counsel went unanswered. A footnote says plaintiff’s counsel is “not suggesting fault or lack of diligence by Defendant’s counsel,” and asserts that Combs has stopped communicating with counsel (ECF No. 46 at 1).
What’s Next
Under the notice of motion, opposition is due Nov. 11, 2026 and reply papers Nov. 17. The motion is returnable Nov. 18 at 9:30 a.m. in the Motion Submission Part, 60 Centre Street, Room 130 (ECF No. 45 at 1–2). The docket shows no opposition yet.
Counsel and Sources
Counsel of record: Plaintiff: Greg G. Gutzler and Emma Bruder, DiCello Levitt LLP; Adam M. Prom (pro hac vice); Gloria Allred, Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Defendant: David Russell, Jonathan D. Davis, P.C. (ECF No. 43).
Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.
- p. 1 — Notice of Motion, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45), p. 1 -- "on November 18, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard"
- p. 1 — Notice of Motion, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45), p. 1 -- "Motion Submission Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, at 60 Centre Street, Room 130"
- p. 2 — Notice of Motion, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45), p. 2 -- "any opposition to this Motion shall be filed on or before November 11, 2026 and any reply papers shall be filed on or before November 17, 2026"
- p. 1 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 1 -- "is not suggesting fault or lack of diligence by Defendant’s counsel"
- p. 1 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 1 -- "Defendant Sean Combs has stopped communicating with counsel"
- p. 2 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 2 -- "raped Plaintiff, filmed the rape, and showed the video of the rape to other individuals"
- p. 2 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 2 -- "sentenced to over four years in federal prison"
- p. 5 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 5 -- "are signed only by counsel and contain no verification or sworn statement from Defendant"
- p. 5 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 5 -- "Interrogatories shall be answered in writing under oath by the party served, if an individual"
- p. 15 — Exhibit, Responses and Objections to First Set of Interrogatories, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58), p. 15 -- "Dated: July 10, 2026"
- p. 7 — Exhibit, Responses and Objections to First Set of Interrogatories, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58), p. 7 -- "excluding a description of the sexual acts themselves"
- p. 8 — Exhibit, Responses and Objections to First Set of Interrogatories, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58), p. 8 -- "overbroad, unduly burdensome, highly intrusive, harassing"
- p. 6 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 6 -- "recorded the assault “as was his practice”"
- p. 6 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 6 -- "Any privacy concerns are addressed through the parties’ Protective Order"
- p. 7 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 7 -- "seeks highly prejudicial information and appears designed to elicit character evidence"
- p. 8 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 8 -- "Defendant never responded to this compromise offer"
- p. 9 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 9 -- "does not show how he counted"
- p. 9 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 9 -- "In the alternative, Plaintiff will ask for leave to exceed the twenty-five interrogatory limit"
- p. 8 — Exhibit, Responses and Objections to Second Set of Interrogatories, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 59), p. 8 -- "a comprehensive trial narrative rather than a proper interrogatory response"
- p. 10 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 10 -- "he should say so under oath"
- p. 11 — Exhibit, Responses and Objections to Second Set of Interrogatories, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 59), p. 11 -- "Charlucci and Chanee"
- p. 12 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 12 -- "Identifying only “Charlucci and Chanee” is plainly an incomplete response"
- p. 12 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 12 -- "there were three witnesses"
- p. 4 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 4 -- "The deposition of a person confined under legal process may be taken only by leave of the court"
- p. 18 — Memorandum of Law in Support, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46), p. 18 -- "He is the only defendant in this action"
- p. 2 — Affirmation of Adam Prom, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62), p. 2 -- "she would serve her responses immediately after the Court entered the Protective Order"
- p. 2 — Affirmation of Adam Prom, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62), p. 2 -- "amenable to revisiting the meet and confer process"
- p. 2 — Affirmation of Adam Prom, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62), p. 2 -- "Defendant has not identified any supplementation of his discovery responses"
- p. 2 — Exhibit, August 10-14, 2026 Emails, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 55), p. 2 -- "The client has been in solitary"
- p. 2 — Exhibit, September 9-11, 2026 Emails, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56), p. 2 -- "I am working on it. This is not easy with a client in jail"