Garth Brooks Submits Photo of Accuser Into Evidence After Being Slammed for Revealing Her Name

Garth Brooks fired back at his accuser’s attempt to sanction him after he revealed her name in court documents, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Garth, 62, said his ex-hairstylist who sued him for sexual assault was the one who publicized the situation.

Garth filed a federal lawsuit against the accuser in September. He used the pseudonym John Doe for himself and Jane Roe for the hairstylist.

He claimed Jane had threatened to make false allegations of sexual assault. Garth demanded the court find that Jane’s allegations were false and prevent her from bringing a public lawsuit.

Jane then filed a separate lawsuit against Garth for sexual assault in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In her complaint, she named the country singer as the defendant.

Days later, Garth amended his lawsuit to include the name of Jane. In Touch has made the decision to not identity the alleged victim.

Jane’s lawyer slammed the singer’s decision to reveal her identity and asked for sanctions. Jane’s legal team accused Garth of naming Jane to “retaliate, harm and subject her to victim shaming and blaming.” “This egregious conduct must not be condoned, and [Garth] and his counsel shall be responsible for penalties imposed by this court,” her lawyer argued.

Jane asked the court to seal the documents with her name immediately.

Now, Garth has fired back at the request. He said that Jane “already agreed to use her name in this litigation.”

He said Jane refused to agree to keep both of their names sealed when he filed his federal lawsuit. He said she told the court she was willing to identify herself if the court believed that was necessary to deny Garth’s request to proceed as John Doe.

His lawyer said, “No law, statute, or rule obligated Mr. Brooks to file his original complaint or his amended complaint with pseudonyms or under seal. He initially used pseudonyms for both parties in his original complaint, and immediately moved for leave for both parties to proceed under pseudonyms, in an effort to protect both parties and their families from any harm resulting from public disclosure of [Jane’s] attempted extortion of Mr. Brooks. [Jane] could have embraced the opportunity to remain anonymous; she chose not to.”

His lawyer added, “She also included so many identifying details in her California lawsuit that it eliminated any possibility of her remaining anonymous in this Mississippi case. Her sudden about-face—to now protest Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint identifying both parties—rings hollow.”

Garth accused Jane of sending her complaint to the media. He said her lawsuit made it easy to find her name. He said the facts that she presented helped internet sleuths and country music insiders quickly figure out the name of the accuser.

Garth said Jane spoke about him being a client often.

He attached a 2022 interview that Jane did in a magazine. He said Jane even provided a photo of her with Garth to the publication. The entertainer included the magazine interview and the photo of him with his accuser in his filing.

Garth said she also touted her relationship with him on social media to generate business.

The singer’s lawyer said, “There is no cause to award sanctions against Mr. Brooks or his counsel. Mr. Brooks was entitled to amend his complaint.” A judge has yet to rule.