Aug 31, 2026

Dickerson-Neal v. Combs: Parties Submit Confidentiality Order for Discovery

N.Y. Sup. Ct. · Index No. 952341/2023 · Stipulated Protective Order Submitted Aug. 20, 2026

In the matter of Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.), lawyers for Joi Dickerson-Neal and Sean Combs have submitted a stipulation and proposed order setting confidentiality rules for material exchanged in discovery, known as a protective order. Apart from one notice of appearance in December 2025, it is the first filing in the case since April 2025. (ECF No. 44.

Background

Dickerson-Neal sued Combs on Nov. 23, 2023 under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which opened a one-year window, beginning Nov. 24, 2022, to sue over sexual assaults of adults no matter when they occurred. (ECF No. 15 ¶ 3.) Her amended complaint alleges that on Jan. 3, 1991, after dinner at Wells Restaurant in Harlem, Combs drugged and sexually assaulted her and video-recorded the assault, and that the recording was later shown to others. (Id. ¶¶ 40–42, 46–48.) In his answer, Combs “specifically denies having any dinner with Plaintiff” and any misconduct against her, and pleads defenses including that her claims are time-barred and that the Adult Survivors Act violates due process. (ECF No. 35 ¶ 4 and Second and Seventh Affirmative Defenses.)

The suit began against Combs and two companies, Bad Boy Entertainment and Combs Enterprises LLC, on claims that included New York and New York City “revenge porn,” sex trafficking and gender-motivated violence laws. (ECF No. 1.) In April 2024 the defendants moved to dismiss part of it, arguing that the statutory claims could not reach 1991 conduct and that the companies did not exist then. (ECF No. 12, Points I–II.) Dickerson-Neal instead amended by stipulation, keeping only assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against Combs alone; the companies were dismissed with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 20 ¶ 4.)

Combs then moved to dismiss part of the amended complaint, arguing that it did not plead the apprehension an assault claim requires and that the distress claim was duplicative, was not outrageous enough and fell outside the Adult Survivors Act. (ECF No. 33 at 2.) Plaintiff’s representation changed while the motion was pending: on Jan. 14, 2025, she consented to replace Phillips & Associates’ Michelle Caiola and Jonathan Goldhirsch with Greg G. Gutzler and Emma Bruder of DiCello Levitt LLP and Gloria Allred of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. (ECF No. 32.)

On Feb. 13, 2025, Justice Lyle E. Frank denied the motion, writing that the alleged behavior “is extreme and outrageous, and if true would be intolerable for a civilized community.” (ECF No. 33 at 5.) Combs answered on March 20, 2025. (ECF No. 35.) DiCello Levitt’s Adam M. Prom was admitted pro hac vice, meaning for this case only, on April 14, 2025. (ECF No. 41.)

On April 22, 2025, the parties stipulated to stay all discovery, from parties and non-parties alike, during Combs’s federal criminal trial, then set for May 5. Combs sought the stay to preserve his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; Dickerson-Neal “disagrees with the asserted bases” but consented to avoid motion practice. (ECF No. 42 at 1–2.) The stay was not to “remain in place beyond the Trial,” and Combs reserved the right to seek a new one. (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) It covered discovery only, not the case as a whole. The copy on the docket has a blank line for the court’s signature.

A jury convicted Combs of two counts of interstate transportation for prostitution and acquitted him of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking (Crim. ECF No. 433 at 1); he was sentenced on Oct. 3, 2025 to 50 months in prison. (Crim. ECF Nos. 531, 535.) No later filing in this case revisits the stay.

The Stipulation

The order would cover “[a]ll materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery,” from documents and interrogatory answers to deposition testimony and expert reports. (ECF No. 44 ¶ 1.) A party or non-party may mark material “CONFIDENTIAL” if it falls within defined categories, including financial and trade-secret information, medical information, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and home addresses, tax returns, personnel records, and private information that would subject a person to “annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.” (Id. ¶ 2(A).) A designation is a lawyer’s certification of a good-faith basis, and the parties anticipate it will not be applied to everything produced. (Id. ¶ 3(E), (G).)

Protected material may be used only in this case and its appeals, and shown only to listed groups such as counsel, the parties, the court, experts and witnesses. (Id. ¶ 4.) Sealing is not automatic: a party who wants protected material filed under seal must apply to the court, and the order acknowledges “the legal presumption against filing documents under seal.” (Id. ¶ 5(A).) Either side may challenge a designation at any time; if they cannot resolve it, the designating side must move within 30 days and “shall have the burden,” failing which the material is de-designated. (Id. ¶ 10.) Protected material may not be submitted to any generative AI tool available to the public without a contract or one that trains on or retains what it receives, even if anonymized. (Id. ¶ 15.) The order survives the case; within 60 days of final judgment or a settlement dismissal, protected material must be returned or destroyed. (Id. ¶ 20.)

Gutzler, Bruder, Prom and Allred signed for Dickerson-Neal and David C. Russell of Jonathan D. Davis, P.C. for Combs, each dated Aug. 20, 2026. The lines for Justice Frank’s signature and the date are blank on the filed copy. (Id. at 17–18.)

The Other Side

The filing is joint. Both sides signed beneath the words “WE SO MOVE” and “agree to abide by the terms of this Order,” and it records no dispute between them. (Id. at 18.) Combs’s position on the allegations is in his answer, described above.

What’s Next

The order awaits the court’s signature. Court filings set no discovery schedule, preliminary conference or trial date, and none addresses whether the 2025 stay has ended. The order itself looks ahead to discovery, governing material “to be produced by either party, their respective counsel, or by any non-party in the course of discovery.” (Id. at 1.)

Counsel and Sources

Joi Dickerson-Neal is represented by Greg G. Gutzler, Emma Bruder and Adam M. Prom of DiCello Levitt LLP and Gloria Allred of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Sean Combs is represented by Jonathan D. Davis, P.C.; Erica A. Wolff and Michael Tremonte of Sher Tremonte LLP also appeared for him in May 2024. (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 43.) Source: ECF Nos. 1, 12, 14–17, 20, 32, 33, 35 and 41–44 on the Dickerson-Neal v. Combs docket, and ECF Nos. 433, 531 and 535 on the United States v. Combs docket.

Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.

Related cases

952341/2023

Sourcing

¶ 1 — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery, including but not limited to initial disclosures, documents, and things produced in response to discovery requests, answers to interrogatories, answers to requests for admission, deposition testimony and exhibits, expert reports and disclosures, pretrial disclosures, and information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”), shall be subject to this Order"
p. 1 — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44), p. 1 -- "for the entry of a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), limiting the review, copying, dissemination and filing of confidential and/or proprietary documents and information to be produced by either party, their respective counsel, or by any non-party in the course of discovery in this above-captioned action"
¶ 2(A) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "trade secrets or other proprietary commercial or financial information; ... medical information concerning any individual; (iv) personally identifying information, such as social security or tax number, telephone numbers, and personal addresses; (v) private information about an individual that that, if made public, would subject the individual to annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression; (vi) income tax returns"
¶ 3(B), (E), (G) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "shall be deemed Confidential only if they are designated as such when the deposition is taken or within 21 days after receipt of the transcript. ... The designation of information as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall constitute a certification by an attorney (or a Party appearing pro se) that such document, material, or information has been reviewed and that the Designating Party has a good faith basis for the designation. ... The Parties anticipate that a “CONFIDENTIAL” designation will not be applied to all Discovery Material simply because they are produced in this Action."
¶ 4(A)-(B) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "shall not be used or disclosed by the Parties, counsel for the Parties, or any other persons identified in subparagraphs (B) and (C) for any purpose other than in this Action, including any appeal thereof. ... information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” can only be disclosed to the following persons"
¶ 5(A) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "a Party who seeks to rely on Protected Material produced by another Party in connection with a filing before this Court shall give the Producing Party as much notice as possible ... The Parties will use their best efforts to minimize applications for sealing given the legal presumption against filing documents under seal."
¶ 10(C)-(D) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "A Designation Motion must be filed within thirty (30) days of the Designation Objections to be timely. The Designating Party shall have the burden on any Designation Motion of establishing the applicability of its “CONFIDENTIAL” designation. ... such Discovery Material shall be de-designated in accordance with the Designation Objection applicable to the Discovery Material at issue."
¶ 15 — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "Protected Material shall not be submitted to any Generative AI tool that is available to the public without contractual agreement or that trains upon or otherwise retains information submitted to it. ... The obligations and restrictions of this paragraph apply even where Protected Material has been anonymized."
¶ 20(A)-(B) — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44) -- "this Order shall remain in force after dismissal or entry of final judgment not subject to further appeal. ... Within sixty (60) calendar days after final judgment in this Action, including the exhaustion of all appeals, or within sixty (60) calendar days after dismissal of the Action pursuant to a settlement agreement, each Party or other person subject to the terms of this Order is under an obligation to, at the Producing Party’s discretion, either destroy or return to the Producing Party all Protected Material"
pp. 17-18 — Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44), pp. 17-18 -- "DATED THIS _____ Day of ________________, 2026 [signature line: The Honorable Lyle E. Frank, Justice of the Supreme Court] ... WE SO MOVE And agree to abide by the terms of this Order Dated: August 20, 2026 [signed /s/ Greg G. Gutzler for Plaintiff; /s/ David C. Russell, Jonathan D. Davis, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant]"
¶ 3 — Amended Complaint, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15) -- "Plaintiff’s state law claims are timely under New York’s Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”), N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-j, which, beginning on November 24, 2022, created a one-year lookback window for the survivors of sexual assault that occurred when they were over the age of 18, allowing them to sue their abusers regardless of when the abuse occurred."
¶¶ 40-48 — Amended Complaint, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15) -- "While in the home, Combs sexually assaulted Plaintiff. ... Because she had been drugged, Plaintiff lacked the physical ability or mental capacity to fend Combs off. ... Davante Swing, a member of R&B group Jodeci, told Plaintiff that Combs had filmed himself sexually assaulting Plaintiff and had shown the video to Swing and others while working at the studio."
¶ 4 — Answer and Defenses, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 20, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 35) -- "specifically denies having any dinner with Plaintiff and any act or misconduct by or concerning Combs against her. [Second Affirmative Defense: Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Seventh: ... the provisions of the Adult Survivors Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-j, violate the New York State Constitution and/or the United States Constitution, including the Due Process Clause in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New York.]"
ECF No. 1 — Summons and Complaint, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 23, 2023) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1) -- "SEX TRAFFICKING UNDER THE NEW YORK SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING LAW ... NEW YORK STATE REVENGE PORN LAW ... THE NYC VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT ... NEW YORK CITY REVENGE PORN LAW"
Points I-II — Memorandum of Law in Support of the Combs Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 26, 2024) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12) -- "THE STATUTORY CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMBS DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY ... THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMPANY DEFENDANTS MUST BE DISMISSED ... The Company Defendants Were Not in Existence at the Time of the Alleged Conduct"
¶¶ 3-4 — Stipulation to File Amended Complaint in Lieu of Opposing Motion to Dismiss, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 16, 2024) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14) -- "In lieu of opposing the Motion to Dismiss, the Combs Defendants consent to Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint contemporaneously with this stipulation, which shall moot the Motion to Dismiss and terminate it."
¶¶ 3-5 — Stipulation to File Amended Complaint and Amend Case Caption, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 30, 2024) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 20) -- "In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff dismissed BBE and CE from the action by removing all causes of action against them. ... BBE and CE shall be removed from the case caption and otherwise dismissed with prejudice from the action. ... Combs, the sole remaining defendant"
p. 2 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Frank, J.), Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 13, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33), p. 2 -- "Defendant has moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint on two grounds: 1) that the complaint fails to allege a necessary element of assault, and 2) that the IIED claim cannot be brought under the ASA and is therefore time-barred, that it is duplicative, and it fails to allege conduct arising to the level of extreme and outrageous."
p. 5 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Frank, J.), Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 13, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33), p. 5 -- "The behavior alleged here is extreme and outrageous, and if true would be intolerable for a civilized community. ... The alleged behavior constituting the IIED claim is within the scope of the ASA and therefore is not time-barred. Accordingly, it is hereby ADJUDGED that defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied."
ECF No. 32 — Consent to Change Attorney, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 14, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32) -- "IT IS HEREBY CONSENTED pursuant to NY CVP § 321(b) that Greg Garrell Gutzler, Esq. and Emma Lauren Bruder of Dicello Levitt, and Gloria Rachel Allred, of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, be substituted as attorneys of record for the undersigned party in the above-entitled action in place and stead of the undersigned attorneys as of the date hereof. ... Michelle Caiola, Esq. ... Jonathan Goldhirsch, Esq."
p. 1 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 003 (Frank, J.), Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 14, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 41), p. 1 -- "ORDERED that the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice is granted and Adam M. Prom, Esq. is permitted to appear and to participate in this action on behalf of plaintiff"
pp. 1-2 — Stipulation Staying Discovery in the Action, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 22, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42), pp. 1-2 -- "his constitutional right to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the Criminal Proceeding, and therefore requests a stay of all discovery in the Action of every type or ... kind, whether written, electronic, or testimonial, and whether between parties or with third parties ... Plaintiff disagrees with the asserted bases for Combs’ request for a stay of Civil Discovery, but, nevertheless, consents to such stay during the trial in the Criminal Proceeding (the “Trial”), subject to certain stipulations below, for the purpose of avoiding motion practice at this time; and WHEREAS, the Trial is currently scheduled to begin on May 5, 2025"
¶¶ 3-4 — Stipulation Staying Discovery in the Action, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 22, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42) -- "The Discovery Stay shall not remain in place beyond the Trial, including during any appeals and/or retrial of Combs in the Criminal Proceeding, unless extended in writing by the parties. ... Combs fully preserves the right to make any motion for a stay of Civil Discovery and/or a stay of the Action, as a whole, at any time"
p. 3 — Stipulation Staying Discovery in the Action, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs et al., Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 22, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42), p. 3 -- "SO ORDERED: ... HON. LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C. [neither the signature line nor the date line is filled in on the filed copy]"
ECF No. 43 — Notice of Appearance of David C. Russell, Dickerson-Neal v. Combs, Index No. 952341/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 16, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 43) -- "David C. Russell of the law firm Jonathan D. Davis, P.C. ... hereby appears as counsel on behalf of Defendant Sean Combs in the above-captioned action"
ECF No. 433 at 1 — Government letter following the jury trial, United States v. Combs, No. 1:24-cr-00542 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2025) (ECF No. 433) -- "Following a seven-week jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of two counts of interstate transportation for the purpose of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). ... The jury subsequently acquitted the defendant on counts related to racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking."
ECF No. 531 — Government letter, United States v. Combs, No. 1:24-cr-00542 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2025) (ECF No. 531) -- "was sentenced on October 3, 2025"
ECF No. 535 at 2 — Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Combs, No. 1:24-cr-00542 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2025) (ECF No. 535) -- "Sheet 2 — Imprisonment ... 50 months"

← All Dispatches