Garth is hitting back at allegations that he did anything wrong by publicly identifying his accuser. Of course by now everybody already knows that a couple weeks ago, a lawsuit was filed in California against
Garth Brooks by his former makeup artist and hairstylist, identified in her complaint only as Jane Roe, accusing the country singer of rape and sexual assault. The lawsuit alleges that the woman, who has since moved back to Mississippi, has previously worked for many famous clients in addition to Garth and Trisha. Garth has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them "behavior that I am incapable of," and blasting the lawsuit as an attempt at extorting him out of "millions of dollars." And as it turns out, the "Friends In Low Places" singer had actually filed an anonymous lawsuit against his accuser back in September in a Mississippi court, in an attempt to prevent her allegations from becoming public. In that lawsuit, which was initially filed under the name John Doe, Garth asked a court for a judgment declaring her allegations untrue and an injunction preventing her from "further publicizing" her claims against him, and also compensation and punitive damages for the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and defamation. Garth had asked for permission from the court in Mississippi for both parties to proceed under a pseudonym, which his accuser opposed. But before the court in Mississippi had ruled on his motion, Jane Roe filed her lawsuit in California, making her allegations public and exposing Garth as the celebrity in the Mississippi lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit being filed in California, Garth returned to court in Mississippi last week and withdrew his motion to proceed under a pseudonym, since at this point it was moot anyway. But he also filed an amended complaint which
publicly named his accuser , revealing her identity to the public for the first time. And naturally, her attorneys weren't happy. In a statement blasting the move yesterday, attorneys for his accuser promised to seek sanctions against Garth for publicly naming the previously-unidentified woman:
“Garth Brooks just revealed his true self. Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately.” And true to their word, that's what they did. In a motion filed last week, attorneys for the woman asked the court to not only seal or redact Garth's amended complaint to remove her name, but also asked the court to impose sanctions on the country singer for what her attorneys called "appalling and malicious behavior." The filing accuses Garth of naming his accuser out of retaliation for her filing her lawsuit against him, claiming they had no idea that he planned to reveal her identity before the amended complaint was filed. And she also accuses Garth of the "unlawful disclosure of a rape victim's identity" while asking the court to impose sanctions on the singer:
"This egregious conduct must not be condoned, and Plaintiff and his counsel shall be responsible for penalties imposed by this Court." Additionally, the woman also threatens to file a counterclaim against Garth for any "intentional torts" he committed by revealing her identity. But Garth is fighting back. In a new filing this week, which has been obtained and reviewed by Whiskey Riff, the country singer (well, his attorneys) claim that the woman has "already agreed" to use her name in the case, and that he's done nothing wrong by identifying her publicly. (And just to get this out of the way: We've made the decision not to use her name right now. It's out there, so if you're really interested it's not exactly hard to find, but we're going to wait for the court to make their decision before identifying her here). Garth claims that based on the description of "Jane Roe" in her California lawsuit, "internet sleuths and country music industry insiders" had already identified the woman, because she is the only person who fits the description she provided. He also included with his filing a profile of his accuser from a magazine in her home state of Mississippi, which identified her as "a leading celebrity makeup artist" and features a picture of her with Garth and Trisha. And he also points to previous filings from the woman, in which she opposed Garth's request for both parties to proceed under pseudonyms, as agreeing to be publicly identified. In one filing, the woman asserted that no basis existed to "conceal the identities of he and Ms. Roe." And she also previously told the court in a filing that she "is willing to proceed using her name here if this Court believes that is necessary" to deny Garth's motion. So to sum it up, Garth is arguing that he was trying to protect her identity as well as his by requesting to use pseudonyms in the case. But he's alleging that when she went public with her California lawsuit, it made that request moot, so there was no reason to protect her identity - something he claims she agreed to do. The court has yet to rule on whether her name will have to be redacted going forward, but of course at this point you can't really put that genie back in the bottle now that it's already out there anyway.
Local News
