Sean “Diddy” Combs Claims Eyewitness Lying About Alleged Sex Tapes- Here’s What He Plans To Do Next

Sean “Diddy” Combs has moved to expedite a motion for a gag order following reports from an eyewitness who claimed ownership of some of his alleged sex tapes. Attorneys Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos, representing Combs, argued to the judge that such claims are damaging the fairness of his trial and affecting the integrity of the grand jury process.

According to a letter obtained by a leading publication, Combs filed a motion seeking to limit extrajudicial statements by potential witnesses, emphasizing that public comments during ongoing trials could influence outcomes. The letter asserted that suppressing these statements would ensure a fair trial for Combs.

Sean “Diddy” Combs Claims Eyewitness Lying About Alleged Sex Tapes

The developments came after various reports featured Courtney Burgess, a man who testified that he possessed Diddy’s purported sex tapes. Combs’ legal team noted that Burgess, along with his attorney, had given multiple media interviews, including one right after his grand jury appearance.

The attorneys stated that Burgess was subpoenaed after he publicly made allegations on social media, claiming possession of videos depicting celebrities and minors in compromised situations. This news circulated rapidly, creating negative perceptions about Combs.

Combs’ legal team argued that these allegations were untrue and that the government’s validation of such sensational claims was “deeply prejudicial.” They are requesting a court order to restrict public comments by potential witnesses and their legal representatives.

On October 31, Burgess appeared on NewsNation’s Banfield, alleging that Diddy’s late ex, Kim Porter, gave him 11 flash drives containing videos before her death. Burgess claimed the footage involved eight celebrities—six men and two women—as well as two or three minors who appeared intoxicated and seemingly portrayed as “victims” rather than perpetrators.

Prosecutors, however, opposed the gag order, pointing out that the case’s plaintiffs are involved in civil litigation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of criminal court proceedings.