Sean 'Diddy' Combs assault video was not leaked, prosecutors say

A video showing Sean "Diddy" Combs assaulting his former girlfriend was not leaked to CNN by federal prosecutors because they didn't have it at the time, prosecutors insisted in a new overnight court filing.

"[T]he defendant argues baselessly that a video depicting the defendant's assault of a victim at the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles on March 5, 2016 was provided to a media outlet by Government agents," the filing said.

Prosecutors urged the judge overseeing the case to reject Combs' request for an evidentiary hearing, calling it nothing more than an attempt to quash a "damning" piece of evidence against him.

"Without any factual basis, the Leak Motion seeks to suppress highly probative evidence—a video of Combs brutally physically assaulting a victim in March 2016 that was published by a media outlet in May 2024—by claiming that it was grand jury material leaked by Government agents to CNN. But, as the defendant is fully aware, the video was not in the Government's possession at the time of CNN's publication and the Government has never, at any point, obtained the video through grand jury process," the filing said.

Defense attorneys have argued the purported leaks interfere with the ability of Combs to get a fair trial.

Prosecutors also urged the judge to reject Combs' request to force them to reveal the identity of his accusers.

"[T]he defendant's request for victim names should be denied on the basis that it is tantamount to a request for early disclosure of the Government's witness list, something he is clearly not entitled to at this extremely early stage of the proceedings," prosecutors said. "Moreover, early disclosure of witnesses is especially unwarranted here, where there are serious concerns of witness safety and obstruction."

Prosecutors accused Combs of attempting to "co-opt this criminal proceeding to defend against civil litigation" filed by anonymous accusers.

A judge overseeing at least one of those civil cases just rejected the plaintiff's attempt to proceed under a pseudonym, saying there is "presumption of openness in judicial proceedings."