Prosecutors say the recording of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ assault was not leaked

Video showing Sean “Diddy” Combs about the assault on his ex-girlfriend was not leaked to CNN by federal prosecutors because they did not have it at the time, prosecutors insisted in a new court filing filed yesterday.

“Defendant falsely argues that a video showing defendant assaulting the victim at the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles on March 5, 2016 was released to the media by government agents,” the lawsuit reads.

Prosecutors urged the judge overseeing the case to deny Combs’ request for an evidentiary hearing, calling it nothing more than an attempt to invalidate “damning” evidence against him.

“Without any factual basis, the leak request seeks to suppress highly probative evidence – video of Combs brutally physically assaulting the victim in March 2016, published by the media in May 2024 – by claiming it was grand jury footage, which was leaked by the government to CNN agents, however, the defendant is fully aware that the video was not in the government’s possession at the time of CNN’s publication and the government never obtained it in the grand jury proceedings,” the filing reads.

Defense attorneys argued that the alleged leaks made it harder for Combs to get a fair trial.

Prosecutors also urged the judge to deny Combs’ motion to force him to reveal the identities of his accusers.

“The defendant’s request to provide the victims’ names should be rejected on the grounds that it amounts to a request for advance disclosure of the government’s witness list, which he clearly has no right to do at this very early stage of the proceedings,” prosecutors said. “Furthermore, early disclosure of witnesses is particularly unwarranted in this case where there are serious concerns about witness safety and obstruction of access.”

Prosecutors accused Combs of trying to “co-opt this criminal proceeding in order to defend against civil litigation” brought by anonymous accusers.

The judge overseeing at least one of these civil cases has just rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to use a pseudonym, saying there is a “presumption of publicity.”