Warner Bros. Seeks to Quash Diddy’s Move to Access Raw Documentary Interview Footage

Warner Bros. legal reps have asked a New York judge to quash a subpoena from Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team that is demanding the raw, unedited interviews and other materials related to two individuals who appeared in the Investigation Discovery documentary The Fall of Diddy, as the rap mogul’s sex trafficking and racketeering trial looms. 

Combs’s lawyers filed the subpoena in March seeking all of the unedited recordings from interviews with two individuals who appeared in the four-part documentary series, which premiered on Jan. 27. His team also sought any notes or journals sent to producers of the series and records of any payments that may have been made to the two individuals for their participation in the documentary, which looked at the rap mogul’s arrest on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges. 

With jury selection beginning on May 5 and several deadlines approaching in Combs’ Manhattan trial, Warner Bros. attorneys on Tuesday asked federal Judge Arun Subramanian, who is overseeing proceedings, to quash the subpoena, citing “reporter’s privilege” as the legal justification for keeping the materials out of view from Combs and his lawyers.

“Mr. Combs seeks outtakes from interviews with two persons featured in the docuseries,” Warner Bros. attorney Thomas Sullivan wrote to Judge Arun Subramanian. “The interview outtakes it seeks are protected by the reporter’s privilege that applies to unpublished newsgathering materials.

Reporter’s privilege protects journalists from being compelled by the court to reveal confidential sources or information. The idea is rooted in First Amendment rights around a free and open press; 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted Shield Laws relating to reporter’s privilege, but there is no law on the books at the federal level. Prior court decisions and guidance from the Department of Justice have set up hurdles to overcome before the court is forced to overpass a reporter’s privilege to protect sources.

“Mr. Combs has not met, and cannot meet, his burden to overcome that privilege,” Sullivan wrote to the judge.

Sullivan identified in the letter that the two individuals the Combs defense is seeking the materials, by description but not by name, as a chef who worked for the hip-hop and fashion mogul and one of his ex-girlfriends; they are referred to as Individual A and Individual B. He posits in the letter that Combs and his lawyers hope to find details in the materials that will be usable against them, should they testify against him.

“Individual A is Mr. Combs’ former personal chef,” the studio wrote. “She is featured in the docuseries speaking about how Mr. Combs treated her when she was employed by him, as well as about various rumors she heard about his behavior during her time in his orbit,” he wrote. “Individual B is a former romantic partner of Mr. Combs. She is featured in the docuseries discussing the origins and path of her relationship with him, including one alleged incident of sexual assault.”

The studio’s attorney reminds the judge that interviews with two The Fall of Diddy subjects would be hearsay and, therefore, not directly admissible in the federal case. 

“Courts have consistently held that broad subpoenas for journalistic outtakes based on the hope that the unpublished material might prove relevant in some way are insufficient to overcome the reporter’s privilege,” Sullivan wrote in the letter.

Per Judge Subramanian, Combs has until Thursday to reply to Sullivan’s motion to quash. An email sent to Comb’s representative by The Hollywood Reporter seeking comment did not receive an immediate reply on Wednesday.