Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy: Rap Mogul Used 'Terrifying' NDAs to Silence His Circle Ahead of Trafficking Investigation

Episode Date: April 6, 2024

Sean “P. Diddy” Combs allegedly insisted that people close to him sign non-disclosure agreements, forbidding them from talking about what they saw and heard the music mogul do. Many of his artists were forced to sign what a lawyer called "terrifying" NDAs in the years leading up to the federal trafficking investigation. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber walks through the legal paperwork with David Ring, a trial attorney who represented Jane Doe 1 in the Harvey Weinstein case.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wonderly Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wonderly Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Because P. Diddy be wanting the body. And you got to tell him no. You've got to tell him no. Sean Diddy Combs is facing some serious allegations in civil lawsuits and the threat of arrest as part of a federal investigation into human trafficking. That's hanging over his head, too. There apparently have been rumors about Combs and his lifestyle for decades. So why haven't people come forward before now?

Well, we're exploring the colossal non-disclosure agreements those in Combs' inner circle may have had to sign, and we're breaking it down with renowned trial attorney David Ring. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Here's a question that keeps coming up. as we talk about Sean Combs, and his name is continually in the spotlight, how is it that people can sue the rapper and producer and potentially talk to the government about him? Didn't they sign NDAs non-disclosure agreements? And by the way, if all of these

allegations are true, was it because of these NDAs that people didn't come forward sooner? Important questions, and that's what we're going to get into right now, because the diddy non-disclosure agreements, a lot to talk about. Now, Combs, of course, is the subject of several lawsuits alleging sexual assault, rape, harassment, physical violence, sex trafficking, spiking the drinks of minors and sex workers, the transportation and possession of firearms. We also know that after federal agents from Homeland Security raided two of Combs' properties in L.A. and Miami last week, it was reported that this was all pursuant to an ongoing investigation potentially centered around sex trafficking. Now, Combs, to be very clear,

has not been arrested. He has not been criminally charged, although experts and analysts predict. it is only a matter of time, but we shall see. However, what keeps coming up is the contracts that Combs and his team allegedly required those in his orbit to sign to seemingly keep quiet about what they saw and heard. And you're seeing more people who've been associated with him that they've hinted at suspicious or legal activity taking place, especially during his apparently legendary parties. I mean, to give you a sense, Aubrey O'Day from the musical group Danity Kane, that Combs helped to form, claim that Combs had asked her to sign an NDA in exchange for the group's publishing

rights. Now, as she said on the podcast only stands, quote, I have to release him for any claims or wrongdoings or actions prior to the date of the release. I have to sign an NDA that I will never disparage Puff, bad boy, Janice Combs, or Justin Combs, music, or EMI, or Sony ever in public. She also said in another interview in 2022 that she was fired from the group by Combs because she wasn't willing to do what was expected of her, not talent-wise, but in other areas, and also since the raid, she is referred to herself as a victim. Now, when former Combs producer Rodney Jones sued Mr. Combs, alleging that he was threatened, assaulted, and harassed by the rapper and mogul, he brought up a shooting that happened

at Chalice Recording Studios that he implied Combs and his son were part of. The suit says that, quote, upon information and belief, a few days before the September 12th, 2020 shooting inside of Chalice Recording Studio, Mr. Combs required all attendees of the CRS shooting to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Mr. Jones did not sign the agreement. Unfortunately, for the attendees of the writer's camp, they are unaware that NDAs are non-binding when it comes to reporting criminal activity,

such as a shooting, sex trafficking, and the distribution and use of illegal drugs and guns. A copy of the non-disclosure agreement that a witness who is asked to remain anonymous provided this writer is attached, and that is what we are going to do right now. We are going to break this document down. Joining me right now is David Ring.

He is a nationally renowned trial attorney who specializes in sexual abuse cases, even represented a survivor in the Harvey Weinstein saga. David, so good to see you. Thanks for coming back here on Sidebar. Hey, thank you for having me, Jesse. Now, before we even get into this document, overall, when you're thinking about the Diddy case, let's say you have an ironclad NDA, okay? Talk to me about some ways that they could potentially be invalidated. Look, NDAs have a valid purpose if used properly. You know, if you're working for somebody and they have a lot of confidential or personal information that they want to keep private, then there's a place for nondisclosure agreements.

The problem with NDAs that we've seen over the past few years is they tend to be abused. They tend to be abused by people in positions of power, people like Sean Combs. And so NDAs can cover a lot of things, but NDAs do not cover criminal activity. NDAs do not cover illegal activity. They do not cover things that are already out there in the public domain, information that's already known. So there could be these very broad NDAs that people are forced to sign. That doesn't mean they can't go to the police or the authorities to report crimes, but yet they're duped into believing that. And that's the problem.

And to follow up on that as well, if somebody was under duress to sign an NDA, I imagine that would invalidate it as well. Absolutely. So, you know, if someone is being pressured to sign an NDA and they sign it under duress and they can prove that, the NDA is not enforceable. And that happens all the time as well because, look, people signing NDAs are tend to be in positions of weakness. And the person who's forcing them to sign the NDA is in a position.

of power. And there can be a lot of duress in that situation. So, David, with that in mind, you're ready to break this NDA down? We're going to go portion by portion. We won't go every line, but we're going to go over. You ready to do it? Let's break it down. Okay. So now, by the way, as we break this NDA down, remember, I cannot 100% guarantee the authenticity of this document, but have no reason to believe that it is not true. It was part of this lawsuit. Let's check it out. Okay. So David, the first thing that struck out to me was who is included in this. So this NDA not only covers the person who is signing it, but also shall include you, your estate, each corporation, and or business entity in which

you have an ownership or beneficial interest, and any and all persons and or entities owned and are controlled by you, and or such businesses, affiliates, employees, officers, directors, managers, accountants, and agents, and all of your respective heirs, executors, representatives, administrators, employees, licensees, successors, and assigns. Is that typical? Is there anyone they left out? I mean, no, that is not typical. That is so absurdly overbroad that it basically encompasses anyone you know for the most part.

I mean, to have your errors to locked in on an NDA that they've never even met the person who's having you sign the NDA? No, that language is absurd. Okay. So then it goes into how Combs' privacy is very highly valued, that there are efforts to maintain confidentiality. But then it says you have to keep private not just stuff about Combs, but a lot more. Artist and or any person, corporation, and or other entity related to or affiliated and or associated with artists personally and or professionally, including without limitation, family members, relatives, past or present fiancés, husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, girlfriends, friends, and business associates collectively artists' parties. So everyone again, what do you make of that? Again, I mean, it encompasses anyone and everyone, and that's the problem. It's so vague.

It's so overbroad. Anyone signing this, how would they even know who it applies to? It doesn't just apply to Sean Combs. It applies to basically anyone he knows. And so, again, that's a huge problem. By the way, how could you? I was going to ask you later on, but I might as well ask you now. If you saw some, if someone gave you this NDA, would you say there's some red flags here?

Like, what are you signing into? Who are you about to be in business with or who are you about to be associated with? Would this already the first paragraph or so give you a red flag? If someone came to me and showed me this document and said, hey, should I sign this? I would tell them absolutely not. And who is this person having you sign it? And what is it that you're going to be doing for them? It's a massive red flag to see this three-page document with all of this legalese.

It's insanely overbroad. It gives the person who's having the document, you know, the person, Sean Combs in this instance, it's giving him absolute power. And so I would question anyone who came to me with this document, I question them saying, I highly recommend you do not sign this. Now, another way of looking at is, you know, look, he's a celebrity. it's a different kind of environment. It's not only about his family.

It's not only about him. It's his family, his associates. But let's move on because then it says you have to keep confidential all information that you learn past, present, and future about Diddy, his businesses, his personal life, his financial affairs, whether that be in documents, recordings, pictures. Is that language different than what you've seen before? The problematic part of it is the future. What if this person stops working for Diddy and learns in. information from some other source. This agreement would arguably cover that situation when when really that would be absolutely unfair to have it cover that situation. And again, what this

agreement does is it locks up someone from speaking for basically forever about anything they really know about Sean Combs. And so that's that's the major problem with this, this NDA. But before we go any further, couldn't you say, look, his reputation is his career. It's his livelihood. And when you're dealing with celebrities, maybe this kind of language is necessary. Somebody doesn't have to sign it. I mean, they could walk away and say, oh, you know what? I don't want to be a part of this inner circle. I don't want to walk.

I don't want to be part of it. But like, when you're dealing with celebrities, there is a privacy issue. And maybe it's not uncommon for celebrities to have people sign these kinds of things, no? Well, look, like I said before, there's absolutely a valid purpose for NDAs. But they have to be reasonably, you know, have reasonable constraints. They have to be written in a way that the person can understand it. I mean, this NDA here is just a bunch of, it's like someone threw up a bunch of legalese, put in as broad as terms as they possibly could think of, and it's impossible to read or really understand unless you dig into it. And so that's the problem with this NDA.

This is one that's subject to being abused because it locks in a part and silences them for anything and everything. And that's not the purpose of an NDA. Let me ask you about this part. I thought this was interesting. So another part says that you shall not and shall not authorize any third party to photograph, film, or record Combs or his family and associates. You can't write any books, can't do any interviews about Combs and it goes on and on. But then it says you, and correct me if I'm wrong, you will grant Combs all the rights in any of these prohibited materials. So if you take a video, you're not supposed to take of him.

He owns it. Did I understand that correctly? you read that correctly jesse i mean that's that's again another red flag where where uh anything that the person who signed this nda anything they happen to record right give to someone boom it automatically reverts to the possession of sean combs and then he controls it again it's it's something that someone signing this would never understand what they're actually signing would a court uphold that either that provision or any part of this i think if a court looked again it depends on the context of how all this comes up, right?

The person who's disclosing information, what is the context? That's what we have to look at. But for the most part, a court's going to look at this NDA and most times find it unenforceable. Talk to me about there's a, you can't defame or disparage combs. How does that get complicated here? Because, again, you might have people who are coming out and saying things about him, or you might have people, you mentioned who cooperating with the government, they seem to have a right

to be able to do that. But when you talk about disparaging or defaming combs in light of what is coming out with the lawsuits, with the criminal investigation, how does that get complicated here? It gets complicated. And here's the thing. There's this concept in law called a litigation privilege. And basically, anything you put into a lawsuit, that's fair game. It might not be true. It might be proven to be false. You might lose the case. But because it's in the context of a lawsuit that's filed in a court, you can't be sued for that. So the other thing is if you're cooperating with authorities or your subpoenaed to talk about certain things that are arguably illegal activities or that someone believes that someone's

involved in criminal activities, you have every right to go talk about those things. The NDA is ineffective to all of that stuff. And so while all of that stuff, if it's proven to be false, might be defaming to Sean Combs or somebody else, the fact that you are subpoenaed to talk about it, the fact that you put it in a lawsuit, you're going to be protected by that. Can we talk about the term for a second? Because this was one of the more notable ones. So it says, the term of this agreement and duty to keep all information confidential and

not use prohibited material shall commence on the first date above and continue for the life of artists plus 20 years or 70 years. whichever is longer what do you think very strange i mean where where's that come from so basically anyone who signs this agreement uh cannot divulge anything until what the year 20 90 is that is that what we're talking about here i mean again that is it's ridiculous it's it has it has no basis to have something like that in there uh to have a 70 year basically a trigger to keep someone silent It just goes to show whoever wrote this wanted to be so intimidating to the person signing it that they would think five times before they ever divulged any information about Sean Combs.

But I guess the counter argument to that would be as a musical artist, your work can create further income and a legacy for your family, and even after your death. And if something were to come out right after the artist dies and somebody speaks out negatively about them, that could hurt, that could hurt the finances of it. And so I wonder if that's not totally uncommon when you're dealing with a musical artist, you know, try to, there's one thing about you can't say anything while they're alive, but even after they pass away, their family are still benefiting from their work. And if somebody comes out and says something, you know, that's not fair either. What do you think? Hey, look, that's true. But, but 70 years, I mean,

really, is 70 years reasonable? I can see a few years. I can see five years. I can even see 10 years. but to put in an all-encompassing your silence for the next seven years without any context around that, I think that's an unenforceable provision in this NDA. Speaking of that, there was another thing that kind of, I just got to get your perspective on it. So it says, you hereby appoint artists, Sean Combs, as your attorney in fact, which appointment is irrevocable and coupled with an interest with full power of substitution and delegation to execute all such documents which you fail to execute within five days after artist and or any artist parties requests thereof. And I guess this is regarding the return of materials

or things of that nature or any disclosures that you make. I mean, appointing him as the attorney of fact, can you explain that one to me? Hey, Jesse, to me, this is the most crazy clause in this entire NDA. And it's basically giving Sean Combs the right to step into the shoes of the person who signed this document. So basically, if Sean Combe, let's say someone signed this doc and they gave something to the media and Sean Combs demanded that person, you retract that right now. And the person says, no, I'm not going to. Sean Combs under this agreement would have the right to step into that person's shoes, deal with the media outlet, and say, I have power of attorney over this person. I now am basically in his or her shoes and I have

the right to demand that information back because I am now that person's basically attorney in fact. That is unbelievable. That is all-encompassing power that is given to Sean Combs in this agreement. Again, I have not seen that before. That is very unusual. Now, David, you're an excellent attorney, right? And I imagine that if other attorneys saw this, they would bring up similar hesitation, reservations that you have. But at the end of the document. It says in bold letters, this is an important legal document. And it goes on to say, you acknowledge that you have reviewed this agreement with your legal counsel or knowingly decline the opportunity to do so. Your failure to review this agreement with your legal

counsel should not impair the legally binding nature. And it goes on. But if people sign, if, first of all, if people sign this and they, I would imagine if they signed A, they didn't have an attorney review it, or if they did have an attorney review it, did they ignore what the attorney was saying, or the attorney not pick up on it? Because based on what were our conversation today, it sounds like there are numerous reasons why you would have a client not sign this. So if people signed it, would you imagine they just weren't consulting attorneys on this? I think in the reality of everyday life where these are used, that's why they're abused, is the person who's being asked to sign it, doesn't read it, glances over it, is given a very

short amount of time to sign it, is under duress to sign it, wants. the job so badly or the position so badly or the access to the star so badly, they're willing to sign anything, and they sign it. And they're not going to go pay for an attorney to actually review it. The attorney's not going to review it for free. Someone's going to have to pay that attorney money to review their NDA. How many people are going to go do that? Not many. How many people are even going to really understand this document? You and I are hashing through it, And it's just, it's cobbled together with so much legalese. It's very difficult to absorb it all.

Most people, 99% of the people who have this thrust in front of them who are trying to work with Sean Combs or any other celebrity, they're signing it. They're looking at it. Okay, I'm signing it. And so that's the problem with these agreements is that the stars can put pretty much any clause in there they want. They know the person's going to sign it. All right. Before we wrap up the conversation, David, let me just get your perspective over. overall, because we haven't had a chance to talk about the Diddy situation. After everything you've

seen, you know, the lawsuits came out. These are allegations. Diddy has not been criminally charged as of yet, but there were these raids seemingly pursuant to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York seems to be part of an ongoing investigation, possibly, in sex trafficking. Do you think at the time of this recording that we should expect criminal charges against Sean Combs? All indications are that the government is taking this incredibly seriously. I mean, this appears to be priority number one for the law enforcement agencies that are investigating it. The show of force that they came with to Sean Combs' home in Miami and in Beverly Hills was shocking. I mean, the show of force was amazing with the number

of authorities there and the vehicles and the armored vehicles and the guns and the, I mean, it was shocking. They are taking this incredibly seriously. Does it amount to anything at the end of the day, it's too early to say. But by all indications are that something is brewing and something really serious is brewing. And that tends to lead to an indictment or criminal charges. David Ring, good to see you. Thanks for breaking down the case and this document with me. Let's talk soon. Thank you, Jesse. All right, everybody, that is all we have for you right now here on this episode of Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your

podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.