Lawyers representing one of the men named in a civil lawsuit filed by a former Cornell University student are petitioning a New York judge to impose a gag order. The request argues that extensive media coverage regarding the 2024 allegations could compromise the fairness of a trial by prejudicing potential jurors.
In a motion filed on Monday, attorneys for defendant Diego Sarabia requested “narrowly tailored restrictions” that would bar lawyers and parties in the civil case from making public comments about the allegations outside of court proceedings. The motion alleged that the plaintiff’s legal team has repeatedly addressed the merits of the case through widely distributed media statements, presenting disputed claims and evidence interpretations to the public before discovery or trial has occurred.
The lawsuit stems from a November 2024 complaint filed by a then-undergraduate student, identified only as Jane Doe. She alleged that she was drugged and raped by a group of men at the Chi Phi fraternity house three weeks prior to filing the report. While no criminal charges have been brought, the New York attorney general’s office has launched an investigation into the incident.
James Knox, an attorney for Sarabia, asserted that a gag order is necessary to mitigate juror prejudice and protect the parties from sensitive information leaks that could result in threats, doxing, intimidation, and extrajudicial contact. Knox submitted a list to the court detailing what he described as prejudicial statements made by Thomas Giuffra, the attorney representing Jane Doe.
Responding to the motion, Giuffra stated that the defense has attempted to undermine the case by leaking confidential documents and giving interviews that question Ms. Doe’s account. “The Defense is now attempting to silence me and Ms. Doe because we have been so successful in rebutting their ineffectual attempts to undermine her story,” Giuffra said, adding that “truth always wins out.”
Sarabia has denied any wrongdoing. According to Cornell documents reviewed by ABC News, he previously claimed the interaction was consensual. The lawsuit accuses him of grabbing and kissing Doe before administering ketamine.
The case has sparked national conversations about the handling of sexual assault allegations on college campuses. Meanwhile, a different defendant with the same name, a U.S. Marine Corps member, recently asked the court to restrict filings after he and his family faced harassment and death threats.
Last Friday, Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond agreed to seal certain documents, condemning the harassment as “misguided vigilantism.” In her ruling, she stated that society has established legal procedures to ensure due process, and when individuals bypass these frameworks, innocent people are harmed. “This Court strongly condemns the reported acts of threats and doxing, which can only be characterized as brash, reckless, and ultimately dangerous internet vigilantism,” the judge wrote.
Two defendants with the same name? One a Marine. Getting confusing. Hope the jury can separate facts from the noise.
The judge’s condemnation of internet vigilantism was strong language. Due process matters, even when public opinion is divided.
Is ‘narrowly tailored’ just code for shutting down accountability? Hard to trust a system that lets lawyers weaponize the press.
Gag orders are standard for fair trials, but this defense seems desperate. Why attack the victim publicly first?