Key Points

  • The Second Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the denial of Top Dawg Entertainment's anti-SLAPP motion and directed the trial court to strike the plaintiffs' doxing claim under Civil Code section 1708.89.
  • TDE's press release responding to the lawsuit was protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(4).
  • Absent a statute, a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym only after moving for permission and obtaining findings under the overriding interest test; the plaintiffs here never filed that motion.
  • Naming the plaintiffs was an accurate report about a judicial proceeding protected by the fair report privilege of Civil Code section 47(d), even though their names were not in the court record.
  • The court did not reach whether the conduct constituted doxing or whether the First Amendment barred the claim.

A California appeals court on Oct. 8 threw out a doxing claim against Top Dawg Entertainment, holding that the hip hop and R&B label could lawfully name two women who had sued it as Jane Doe and Jane Roe because they never asked the trial court for permission to proceed anonymously.

A panel of the Second Appellate District, Division Two, reversed a Los Angeles County Superior Court order that had refused to strike the claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which "provides a procedure for weeding out, at an early stage, meritless claims arising from protected activity." Justice Richardson wrote the opinion, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Chavez and Justice Goorvitch.

The published decision holds that plaintiffs who file under pseudonyms without a court order have no enforceable right to anonymity, and that a defendant who names them in a public statement about the case is making an accurate report of a judicial proceeding. That report falls within California's fair report privilege, which bars liability no matter the speaker's motive. "Absent filing such a motion or a statutory basis, they simply had no 'right' to remain anonymous while suing in court," Richardson wrote.

Linda Luna and Ayah Altayri sued on Dec. 6, 2024, naming the label, known as TDE; its executives Brandon Tiffith and Anthony Tiffith Jr.; and David Harrell, who is alleged to be a TDE employee. Luna alleged that while she performed services for TDE from 2019 to 2024, Brandon Tiffith sexually battered her and Anthony Tiffith Jr. sexually harassed her, and that TDE did not pay her. Altayri alleged that Harrell sexually assaulted and harassed her while she lived in a TDE-owned home in 2020 and 2021.

The women never sought a court order allowing them to use pseudonyms. On Jan. 31, 2025, two days before the Grammy Awards, their lawyers issued a press release that used the pseudonyms and called the suit "a glaring example of the systemic abuse and exploitation in the entertainment industry."

TDE responded the next day with its own release, which called the case "a clear example of a shakedown lawsuit by Linda Luna and Ayah Altayri who made a demand of $48 million through their attorneys on fabricated claims." On Feb. 5, 2025, the women amended their complaint to add a claim against TDE under Civil Code section 1708.89, the state's doxing statute, alleging that the label doxed them by disclosing their names.

After the defendants moved to strike the claim, the women conceded that the press release was protected activity but argued they could show a probability of winning. Judge Michael E. Whitaker denied the motion on June 11, 2025, reasoning that naming the women was not necessary to correct the narrative in the public records. Citing rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which no party had raised, Whitaker concluded the disclosure was likely to materially prejudice the proceedings.

Richardson's opinion began with the procedure for suing under a fictitious name. Because the public has a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings, a plaintiff without statutory authorization must file conditionally under a pseudonym and then move for permission. The trial court must expressly find an overriding interest that outweighs public access, among other findings.

The panel held that TDE's release was protected because it addressed a pending lawsuit and an issue of public interest. The court described TDE as "a renowned record label that has launched the career of many famous artists" and said the sexual misconduct allegations concerned an issue of public interest. "We are, of course, sensitive to the nature of Plaintiffs' allegations, and they may have had a strong argument to remain anonymous," Richardson wrote. "But it was incumbent on Plaintiffs to present their request to the trial court as soon as possible."

On appeal, the women argued that the gravamen of the doxing claim was the electronic distribution of personally identifying information rather than speech. The panel rejected that argument, citing a California Supreme Court warning against "saddling courts with an obligation to settle intractable, almost metaphysical problems about the 'essence' of a cause of action."

At that second step, the panel held, the claim fails under Civil Code section 47(d), which protects a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The release described the case as a "lawsuit by Linda Luna and Ayah Altayri." That statement "easily qualifies for the fair report privilege: Luna and Altayri are in fact the plaintiffs in this action," the court wrote.

The panel also rejected the trial judge's reliance on rule 3.6, noting that the rule "expressly allows lawyers to publicly communicate the 'identity of the persons involved.'" No order or rule barred TDE from naming the women. "This is the critical distinction: TDE did not communicate their identities while such a motion was pending," Richardson wrote.

The women argued their names were never part of the judicial record, but the panel held that the privilege covers statements "about the proceedings," not only reports of what was said in them. The court also held immaterial the release's "shakedown" and "baseless claims" language, because the doxing claim challenged only the naming. "Because that statement is unquestionably accurate, the privilege applies," the court wrote.

The panel did not decide the defendants' alternative arguments that the conduct was not doxing as the statute defines it and that the First Amendment barred the claim.

Lawyers for TDE and the other defendants included Jasjaap S. Sidhu of Horvitz & Levy. The women were represented by lawyers including Shounak S. Dharap of Arns Davis Law.

The case returns to Los Angeles County Superior Court, which must grant the anti-SLAPP motion and strike the doxing cause of action. The appeal concerned only that claim, and the panel awarded the defendants their costs on appeal.