 |
| The Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles houses California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which ruled Thursday in favor of Top Dawg Entertainment on a doxing claim. (Coolcaesar/Wikimedia Commons) |
The ruling removes a doxing claim against the influential hip-hop and R&B label but leaves the women's underlying allegations of sexual assault, harassment and unpaid work unresolved.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of California's 2nd District Court of Appeal found that TDE's decision to name the women in a February 2025 press release was protected under state law. The women had filed their lawsuit as Jane Doe and Jane Roe but had never asked a judge for permission to keep their identities confidential.
That omission proved decisive.
The court said TDE's response to the lawsuit was protected by California's anti-SLAPP law, which guards certain speech and petitioning activities against litigation. It also found that the disclosure of the women's names qualified for protection under the state's fair report privilege, which covers accurate reporting about judicial proceedings.
"TDE violated no court order or rule when it disclosed Plaintiffs' names," Justice Anne Richardson wrote for the panel.
The decision reverses a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who had refused to dismiss the doxing claim in June 2025.
TDE, the label that helped launch Kendrick Lamar's career and established SZA as a major R&B star, has been fighting the lawsuit since December 2024.
One plaintiff alleges that Brandon Tiffith sexually battered her and that fellow executive Anthony Tiffith Jr. sexually harassed her while she provided services to the company between 2019 and 2024. She also alleges she was not paid for her work.
The second woman alleges that David Harrell, identified in court documents as a TDE employee, sexually assaulted and harassed her while she lived in a company-owned home in 2020 and 2021.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
The dispute over the women's identities began after their attorneys publicized the lawsuit on Jan. 31, 2025, using the pseudonyms from their complaint.
TDE responded the following day with a statement that identified both women by name, rejected their allegations as fabricated and described the lawsuit as a shakedown. The company also claimed the women, through their attorneys, had demanded $48 million and disputed that either had been an employee.
Four days later, the women amended their complaint to accuse the label of doxing them.
The trial judge initially sided with the women, reasoning that TDE did not need to reveal their identities to defend itself publicly.
The appeals court disagreed.
The judges emphasized that the women could have sought court authorization to proceed anonymously and might have had substantial grounds for such a request. But without that protection, the court found, their use of pseudonyms did not prevent TDE from accurately identifying who had filed the lawsuit.
The ruling does not establish that defendants are always free to identify anonymous plaintiffs. It turns on the absence of a court order, a pending request for anonymity or another applicable legal protection in this case.
Nor did the panel determine whether the original allegations were true.
Instead, it directed the trial court to grant TDE's motion to strike the doxing claim and awarded the defendants their costs on appeal.
The broader lawsuit remains unresolved, with the women still pursuing allegations stemming from their experiences with the label and people associated with it.
