A woman who filed a lawsuit accusing the former head of the Recording Academy Neil Portnow The rape accuser is now moving to withdraw her case, citing concerns that her name will be revealed and a conflict with her own lawyers.
In a letter filed Sunday without the assistance of her lawyers, Jane Doe's accuser told a Manhattan federal judge that she was “unable to proceed with the case” because of “fear of possible serious harm” if her name is revealed in court documents . Portnow's lawyers formally requested.
“The circumstances surrounding this case have created a real concern for my safety and emotional well-being,” the woman wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Advertising sign. “Dismissing the case would reduce that fear and allow me to move forward without unnecessary risk.”
A day after the unusual letter, the woman's lawyer immediately withdrew from the case, saying the relationship with his client had “deteriorated beyond repair”.
“Unbeknownst to counsel, the plaintiff filed a letter with the bar of this court requesting the voluntary dismissal of her case,” Doe's attorney Jeffrey Anderson He wrote. “Plaintiff's pleading on its deposition demonstrates the irreconcilable differences that provide the basis for withdrawal.”
News of Sunday's letter was first reported on Wednesday by the New York Times.
The unnamed woman sued Portnow in November, alleging he drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2018. She also named the Recording Academy as a defendant, saying the group's negligence enabled Portnow's behavior. The case was part of a wave of sexual assault lawsuits filed against powerful men in the music industry in late 2023.
But on Sunday, she sent a letter directly to the judge without the help of her lawyers, announcing that she wanted to withdraw the case. Jane Doe said it was “impossible for me to proceed with the case on all counts” and that dismissing the case would be “in the best interest of all parties.”
The sudden reversal appears to have been sparked by efforts by Portnow's lawyers to force her to reveal her name. In an April filing, his lawyers claimed he wanted to “use anonymity as a shield” while launching a “public relations campaign to destroy Mr. Portnow's reputation.”
A previous ruling, when the case was originally filed in state court, had allowed Jane Doe to proceed under the pseudonym. But Portnow's lawyers said the ruling had no binding effect on the case since it had been moved to federal court in January.
In a response last week, Doe's attorneys argued that the discovery motion should be denied. Referring to his client's “fears of stigmatization and emotional distress,” Anderson warned that “public identification puts the plaintiff at risk of retaliation” and could deter other victims of abuse from coming forward.
But in her letter to the judge on Sunday, Doe said her lawyers had privately disclosed to her on April 26 that they believed Portnow's request for disclosure would be granted. She cited emails in which another attorney told her: “Our view is that they will prevail on this motion and your name will be released, which will harm you and your reputation.” Anderson reportedly wrote that going to federal court meant “your name can no longer be protected” and that she faced “serious further harm.”
Doe also alleged that Anderson had informed her that he would no longer represent her in the case, telling her in a May 1 letter that “the best course of action would be to find a new attorney.” She warned the judge that he had “ignored” her requests for more information and that his public opposition to Portnow's disclosure demands “did not accurately reflect my position”.
“This misrepresentation has significant implications for the case,” Doe wrote in her direct letter to the judge on Sunday. “I am deeply concerned about its impact.”
Anderson did not return a request for comment from Advertising sign on Wednesday.
In court Tuesday, lawyers for both Portnow and the Recording Academy asked the judge for more time to consider how to proceed with Doe's request for voluntary dismissal. Neither immediately responded to requests for comment.
The controversy in the Portnow case comes two months after a different federal judge ruled that one of Sean “Diddy” Combs' accusers would have to reveal her name to proceed with her case. In a February ruling, the judge acknowledged that disclosure “could have a significant impact,” but that allowing pseudonymous cases in the U.S. court system was “the exception, not the rule,” and that “generally, unsubstantiated' privacy concerns were not enough.
