Update: Jane Roe’s attorneys filed a motion for emergency sealing or redactions and for sanctions on Wednesday in response to Tuesday’s legal complaint filed by Garth Brooks, who is referred to as John Doe in the filings. Roe’s legal team specifically referenced the “intentional and unlawful disclosure of a rape victim’s identity, without her consent” as the reason for their motion.
The motion also states that Brooks “commenced this action improperly, for the purpose of thwarting Ms. Roe’s efforts to assert causes of action against him in California under California law for sexual violence, including inter alia sexual assault and rape.” The documents further assert that Brooks was given notice of Roe’s intent to file a lawsuit in California on Oct. 3 (Roe v. Brooks, No. 24 Civ.
25693) and that he “did nothing.”
The attorneys also state that they have “sent an email and left a message with counsel for Mr. Doe regarding the relief requested and [have] not yet heard back.”
Original Story: Attorneys for the Jane Roe who accused Garth Brooks of rape have hit out after the singer revealed the woman’s identity in an amended legal complaint.
“Garth Brooks just revealed his true self. Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately,” said Douglas H. Wigdor (Founding Partner Wigdor LLP), Jeanne M. Christensen (Partner Wigdor LLP), and Hayley Baker (HB Advocates PLLC) in a statement to TheWrap.
Brooks’ amended complaint to his preemptive September lawsuit, was filed Tuesday in Mississippi. In it he accused the woman of “ongoing attempted extortion, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress through outrageous conduct including the publication and threatened wider publication of false allegations of sexual misconduct that would irreparably harm Plaintiff’s reputation, family, career and livelihood.”
The complaint says that the woman worked for Brooks for 15 years before she moved from Tennessee to Mississippi, where she “apparently encountered financial difficulties and asked Plaintiff for financial assistance.”
The documents also indicate Brooks gave the woman financial support until she asked for “salaried employment and medical benefits.” Once that was denied, “she responded with false and outrageous allegations of sexual misconduct she claims occurred years ago.”
Brooks goes on to claim that he only became aware of the allegations on July 17, when he received an “ostensibly ‘confidential’ demand letter” that alleged “a litany of sexual misconduct by Plaintiff ranging from allegations of sexual ‘grooming,’ creation of a sexually hostile work environment, unwanted sexual touching, and sexual assault.” The allegations have “no basis in fact,” the documents state.
The woman sent a follow-up letter on Aug. 24 and allegedly requested “a multi-million dollar payment” in exchange for her silence.
The “revulsive and untrue allegations” have also caused “emotional distress including anxiety and fear for himself and his family,” the documents continued. Brooks is asking the court to issue “a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s allegations against him of sexual misconduct are untrue,” to award “compensatory damages proximately caused by Defendant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy,” and to issue a “preliminary and permanent” injunction to prevent the woman from continuing to speak about the case and the allegations.
He has also requested “reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees” and “pre-judgement and post-judgment interest.”
In a follow-up filing, Brooks explained why his amended complaint names the accuser. “For the sake of his family, and out of respect for Roe’s family as well, Plaintiff titled this action ‘John Doe vs. Jane Roe,’” the filing says about the initial lawsuit.
“Rather than allow this Court to consider and adjudicate Plaintiff’s request, Roe wrested the decision from the Court. While Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed under a pseudonym was pending, and before it was even fully briefed, Roe’s counsel, Douglas Wigdor, revealed to CNN that Plaintiff was world-famous musician and humanitarian Garth Brooks. CNN published Roe’s counsel’s on-the-record quote on October 3, 2024, two days after Roe represented to this Court that she purportedly ‘respects this Court’s authority to decide whether Mr. Doe can
proceed under a pseudonym,” the filing also said.
Brooks was accused of rape in a lawsuit filed by the Jane Roe on Oct. 3, 2024. According to court documents provided to TheWrap, the alleged incidents took place back in 2019. Roe asserts she was once raped by Brooks while employed by him at an event. The singer has previously denied the accusations.
Roe’s lawsuit stated that in 2019 she flew with Brooks to Los Angeles to tape a Grammy performance to Sam Moore, and she alleged Brooks raped her in a hotel room while on the trip.
“Usually there were others on Brooks’ private jet but this time, Ms. Roe and Brooks were the only two passengers,” the complaint reads. “Once in Los Angeles at the hotel, Ms. Roe could not believe that Brooks had booked a hotel suite with one bedroom and she did not have a separate room.”
The plaintiff is represented by Wigdor, who previously filed numerous #MeToo lawsuits against Harvey Weinstein and others.
“We applaud our client’s courage in moving forward with her complaint against Garth Brooks,” Wigdor and co-counsels Jeanne M. Christensen and Hayley Baker said in a statement. “The complaint filed today demonstrates that sexual predators exist not only in corporate America, Hollywood and in the rap and rock and roll industries but also in the world of country music. We are confident that Brooks will be held accountable for his actions and his efforts to silence our client through the filing of a preemptive complaint in Mississippi was nothing other than an act of desperation and attempted intimidation. We encourage others who may have been victimized to contact us as no survivor should suffer in silence.”
Brooks filed a preemptive complaint on Sept. 13 as an attempt to prevent the woman’s lawsuit. “Defendant’s allegations are not true,” his previous lawsuit stated. “Defendant is well aware, however, of the substantial, irreparable damage such false allegations would do to Plaintiff’s well-earned reputation as a decent and caring person, along with the unavoidable damage to his family and the irreparable damage to his career and livelihood that would result if she made good on her threat to ‘publicly file’ her fabricated lawsuit.”
Pamela Chelin contributed to this reporting.
