In a legal turn as booty-bumpin’ as Diddy’s latest headlines, Miami attorney Ariel Mitchell is seeking a federal judge to throw out a $50 million defamation suit the hip-hop mogul filed against him, claiming the damage is done.
Diddy is suing Courtney Burgess for allegedly amplifying “outrageous lies about my involvement in the shooting death of Christopher Wallace, and my responsibility in connection with the death of Tupac.” Burgess and Nexstar Media, the parent company of NewsNation, are also listed as co-defendants in the suit, which was filed in January.
Check Out this Article: Malcolm-Jamal Warner, Beloved "Cosby Show" Star, Dies at 54
At the center of Diddy’s lawsuit is Burgess’s allegations during the interview, in which he said he was given 11 flash drives from the late Kim Porter that contained footage of “Freakoffs” with celebrities and minors. He further said he had excerpts from Porter’s memoirs, even though the man’s children have declared them to be fake.
However, Mitchell’s lawyer, Steven A. Metcalf II, argues that Mitchell’s appearance on the show didn’t contain any defamatory statement and that, even if it did, her position as a legal adviser insulates her from liability.
“She was acting in her capacity as an attorney in connection with and, or in anticipation of, litigation,” Metcalf wrote in the filing. “You can’t execute her for guilt by association. That violates the First Amendment.”
Mitchell’s team also contends that because the government subpoenaed and ultimately took possession of the precise flash drives Burgess referred to, it demonstrates the truthfulness of what she told. Pictures and videos were created, which is what led to a federal subpoena. The government essentially said they vouch for those photos and videos existing,” said Metcalf.
For his part, Diddy still maintains that he’s innocent, and this has become a media witch-hunt that ruined his life on a personal and professional level. In his lawsuit, he accuses the network of a coordinated attack on his reputation and brand.
But Mitchell’s defense team argues that Diddy’s criminal trial had said and done far worse than any TV appearance could inflict on job prospects. Just a few weeks ago, on July 2, 2025, Diddy was convicted on two counts of transporting people across state lines for prostitution, the allegations that have ricocheted across headlines and social feeds.
“After such graphic and, really, jaw-dropping testimony at trial, it’s difficult to argue that there’s any reputation left to harm,” Metcalf said. “There are a whole host of other allegations against the plaintiff which make whatever Mitchell may have said a drop in the bucket.
And that is the key hinge here: You can’t defame someone who already has such a terrible public image, Mitchell’s team says. Unless Diddy can prove that Mitchell spoke with “actual malice” or that she knew what she was saying was false or said what she said with reckless disregard, her words could be seen as protected speech.
With the courtroom drama still unfolding, this is not only about $50 million. It’s the question of where the legal line falls between speaking out, telling the truth, and tearing someone down. And in Diddy’s case, the court can now determine whether his name was already unsalvageable.
0 Comments