Jones v. Combs: Jones Moves to Dismiss Combs's Counterclaims
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims · Filed Sept. 17, 2026
In the matter of Jones v. Combs, Rodney Jones has filed a memorandum of law asking the court to dismiss Counts I–IX of Sean Combs’s counterclaims and the allegedly defective or privileged portions of Count X. Jones argues that Combs's allegations rest on labels rather than pleaded facts.
Background
Combs filed an amended answer and counterclaims against Jones on Aug. 11, 2026 (ECF No. 120), accusing Jones of taking a videographer's external drives during a trip to St. Barths, copying footage, and selling it to rival documentary producers in California. Jones was granted an extension of time to respond (ECF Nos. 121, 123) before filing this motion on Sept. 17.
The Common Premise
Jones's central argument is that Counts I through IX all depend on the same unproven chain: that Combs can identify a videographer, a specific drive, when it went missing, and how footage that later aired traces back to it. The motion argues Combs never clears that bar: "Combs alleges that, during a St. Barths trip referenced in the SAC, Jones accessed a videographer's workstation, stole external drives, copied footage, traveled with it, sold it to competing documentary producers in California, and still possesses the drives, but each link is alleged only on information and belief or in conclusory terms."
The filing singles out what it calls the only concrete allegation in Combs's pleading — an on-screen documentary credit reading "Lil Rod provided the filmmakers with footage of his 13 months working with Combs" — and argues it can't carry the weight Combs puts on it: "Providing footage is not stealing a drive. Providing footage is not accessing a computer without authorization. Providing footage is not selling footage. Providing footage is not receiving payment. And providing footage is not retaining a physical drive."
Count-by-Count
Beyond the shared pleading defect, Jones challenges several counts on independent grounds. On the CFAA claim (Count I), the motion argues Combs pleaded a dollar figure, not a legally qualifying loss: "Paragraph 111 alleges ‘significant loss’ aggregating ‘in excess of $5,000 in value.’ Those words state an amount, not a qualifying category." Jones also argues that several state-law counts — including conversion, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and replevin — are preempted by federal copyright law to the extent they seek control over reproduction and distribution of the footage. Separately, he argues Count II does not allege a California computer-access event, Count V does not establish a basis for applying French law, and Count VI seeks damages the UCL does not authorize.
The Defamation Claim
Count X is challenged on narrower grounds. Jones's motion argues that paragraph 162(f) does not plead actual malice: Combs alleges Jones knew the hidden-camera accusation was false because he never saw any such footage, an inference the motion says does not follow, since a recording can exist without the person recorded ever seeing it. The motion also invokes New York Civil Rights Law § 74, which protects fair and true reports of judicial proceedings: "Civil Rights Law § 74 protects publication of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. Substantial accuracy is sufficient; verbatim reproduction is unnecessary."
The Other Side
Combs has not yet filed an opposition to this motion. The underlying counterclaims, which this motion seeks to dismiss, accuse Jones of unauthorized computer access, theft and sale of footage, conversion, unjust enrichment, wrongful detention of property, and defamation.
What's Next
No hearing date has been set, and the filing does not state Combs's deadline to respond.
Counsel and Sources
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Jones is represented by Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq. of T.A. Blackburn Law, PLLC. Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Combs is represented in this case by Erica A. Wolff.
Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.
- p. 5 — Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Rodney Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, Jones v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-01457 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2026) (ECF No. 125), p. 5 -- "Combs alleges that, during a St. Barths trip referenced in the SAC, Jones accessed a videographer's workstation, stole external drives, copied footage, traveled with it, sold it to competing documentary producers in California, and still possesses the drives, but each link is alleged only on information and belief or in conclusory terms."
- p. 8 — Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Rodney Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, Jones v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-01457 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2026) (ECF No. 125), p. 8 -- "The quoted credit states: 'Lil Rod provided the filmmakers with footage of his 13 months working with Combs.' ... Providing footage is not stealing a drive. Providing footage is not accessing a computer without authorization."
- pp. 10-11 — Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Rodney Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, Jones v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-01457 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2026) (ECF No. 125), pp. 10-11 -- "Paragraph 111 alleges 'significant loss' aggregating 'in excess of $5,000 in value.' Those words state an amount, not a qualifying category."
- p. 26 — Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Rodney Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, Jones v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-01457 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2026) (ECF No. 125), p. 26 -- "Civil Rights Law § 74 protects publication of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. Substantial accuracy is sufficient; verbatim reproduction is unnecessary."