{"id":645,"date":"2024-05-08T15:40:33","date_gmt":"2024-05-08T15:40:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/neil-portnow-accuser-in-rape-case-moves-to-drop-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2024-05-17T15:52:01","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T15:52:01","slug":"neil-portnow-accuser-in-rape-case-moves-to-drop-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/neil-portnow-accuser-in-rape-case-moves-to-drop-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Neil Portnow Accuser in Rape Case Moves to Drop Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A woman who filed a lawsuit<\/a> accusing former Recording Academy boss Neil Portnow<\/strong> of rape is now moving to drop her case, citing concerns that her name will be revealed and a dispute with her own lawyers.<\/p>\n

In a letter filed Sunday without the help of her attorneys, the Jane Doe accuser told a Manhattan federal judge<\/a> she was \u201cunable to proceed with the case\u201d because of \u201cfear of potential grave harm\u201d if her name is disclosed in court documents, as Portnow\u2019s attorneys have formally requested.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe circumstances surrounding this case have created a genuine concern for my safety, and emotional well-being,\u201d the woman wrote in the letter, obtained by Billboard<\/em>. \u201cDismissing the case would alleviate this fear and allow me to move forward without unnecessary risks.\u201d<\/p>\n

A day after the unusual letter, the woman\u2019s lawyer moved to withdraw from the case immediately, saying the relationship with his client had \u201cdeteriorated beyond repair.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cUnbeknownst to counsel, plaintiff filed a letter on this court\u2019s docket requesting voluntary dismissal of her case,\u201d Doe\u2019s attorney Jeffrey Anderson<\/strong> wrote. \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s action in filing it demonstrates the irreconcilable differences that provide a basis for withdrawal.\u201d<\/p>\n

The news of Sunday\u2019s letter was first reported Wednesday<\/a> by the New York Times.<\/em><\/p>\n

The unnamed woman sued Portnow in November, claiming that he had drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2018. She also named the Recording Academy as a defendant, saying that the group\u2019s negligence had enabled Portnow\u2019s conduct. The case was part of a wave of sexual abuse lawsuits filed against powerful men in the music industry in late 2023.<\/p>\n

But on Sunday, she sent a letter directly to the judge without the aid of her attorneys, announcing that she wanted to drop the case. The Jane Doe said that it was \u201cimpossible for me to proceed with the case in all aspects\u201d and that dismissing the case would be in \u201cthe best interest of all parties.\u201d<\/p>\n

The sudden reversal appears to have been sparked by efforts from Portnow\u2019s attorneys to force her to reveal her name. In an April filing, his lawyers claimed that she wanted to \u201cuse anonymity as a shield\u201d while embarking on a \u201cpublic relations campaign to destroy Mr. Portnow\u2019s reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n

A previous ruling, when the case had originally been filed in state court, had allowed the Jane Doe to proceed under the pseudonym. But Portnow\u2019s lawyers said that ruling had no binding effect on the case after it had been moved to federal court in January.<\/p>\n

In a response last week, Doe\u2019s lawyers argued that disclosure motion should be denied. Citing his client\u2019s \u201cfears of stigma and emotional distress,\u201d Anderson warned that \u201cpublic identification puts plaintiff at risk of retaliatory harm\u201d and could deter other abuse victims from coming forward.<\/p>\n

But in her letter to the judge on Sunday, Doe said that her lawyers had privately disclosed to her on April 26 that they believed Portnow\u2019s demand to reveal her would be granted. She quoted from emails in which another attorney told her: \u201cOur view is that they will prevail on that motion and your name will be made public which will cause harm to you and your reputation.\u201d Anderson allegedly wrote that the move to federal court meant that \u201cyour name can no longer be protected\u201d and she faced \u201cgrave further harm.\u201d<\/p>\n

Doe also claimed that Anderson had informed her that he would no longer be representing her in the case, telling her in a May 1 letter that \u201cthe best route would be for you to find a new attorney.\u201d She warned the judge that he had \u201cignored\u201d her requests for more information, and that his public opposition filing to Portnow\u2019s disclosure demands \u201cdid not accurately reflect my position.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis misrepresentation has significant implications for the case,\u201d Doe wrote in her direct letter to the judge on Sunday. \u201cI am deeply concerned about its impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anderson did not return a request for comment from Billboard <\/em>on Wednesday.<\/p>\n

In court filings on Tuesday, attorneys for both Portnow and the Recording Academy asked the judge for more time to consider how to proceed after Doe\u2019s request for voluntary dismissal. Neither immediately responded to requests for comment.<\/p>\n

The dispute in the Portnow case comes two months after a different federal judge ruled that one of Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs\u2019 accusers would have to reveal her name to proceed in her case. In a February ruling, the judge acknowledged that disclosure \u201ccould have a significant impact,\u201d but that allowing cases to proceed under a pseudonym in the U.S. court system was \u201cthe exception and not the rule\u201d and that \u201cgeneralized, uncorroborated\u201d concerns about privacy were not enough.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A woman who filed a lawsuit accusing former Recording Academy boss Neil Portnow of rape is now moving to drop her case, citing concerns that her name will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":646,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[956,294,957,303,693,954,1194,955,953],"class_list":["post-645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-accuser","tag-case","tag-drop","tag-lawsuit","tag-moves","tag-neil","tag-neil-portnow","tag-portnow","tag-rape"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=645"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":815,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/645\/revisions\/815"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/646"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}