Accusers Who Didn’t Seek Anonymity Not Victims of Doxing

Friday, October 9, 2026

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

Accusers Who Didn’t Seek Anonymity Not Victims of Doxing

Opinion Says Record Label Due Anti-SLAPP Relief Relating to Press Release Naming Two Plaintiffs, Who Filed Sex Abuse Suit as Doe Parties, Where They Had Not Sought Approval to Proceed Pseudonymously

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

Div. Two of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday that a trial judge erred in denying anti-SLAPP relief to a record label accused of doxing two women who had filed a complaint against the company using “Doe” and “Roe” pseudonyms, by disclosing their true names in a press release, calling the lawsuit a “shakedown.”

Justice Anne Richardson authored yesterday’s decision, opining that the lawsuit was doomed by virtue of the plaintiffs’ failure to seek court permission to proceed pseudonymously before the information was publicly released. She wrote:

“We conclude the trial court erred in denying the motion because (1) the activity underlying the doxing cause of action, a press release denying Plaintiffs’ allegations and disclosing their full names, constitutes protected activity; and (2) the disclosure of Plaintiffs’ names is protected by the fair report privilege in the absence of a pending motion to seal.”

The question arose after Linda Luna and Ayah Altayri filed a complaint against Top Dawg Entertainment LLC (“TDE”) in December 2024, asserting sexual harassment and other claims against the company and two of its executives, Anthony Tiffith Jr. and Brandon Tiffith, as well as against David Harrell, who they asserted, on information and belief, was acting as an employee of the Carson-based hip-hop record label.

Allegations in Complaint

Luna alleged that both Tiffiths sent her sexually themed text messages in 2020-21, while she was performing work for the company, and that Brandon Tiffith assaulted her in early 2021 after the two had drinks to discuss her services. Altayri claimed that she was harassed and assaulted by Harrell in 2020 while she was living in a house provided to her by TDE to provide “moral support” to a new artist signed by the company.

Two days before the February 2025 Grammy Awards ceremony, their attorneys issued a press release about the lawsuit, referring to the plaintiffs by the pseudonyms used in the complaint. On Feb. 1, TDE publicly responded through its lawyers, saying:

“This is 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, and whose attorneys are looking for their ten minutes of fame.”

On Feb. 5, 2025, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a cause of action against TDE for doxing under Civil Code §1708.89, which creates a civil cause of action and defines the term as:

“[A]n act when a person, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, emails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information…which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action.”

Anti-SLAPP Motion

TDE responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion as to the new claim under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, which specifies:“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”

On June 11 of last year, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Whitaker denied the request, finding that the release was not protected speech, citing Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, which prohibits attorneys from making an “extrajudicial statement” that has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing ongoing litigation unless, among other exceptions, a reasonable lawyer would conclude it necessary to correct the public narrative.

Richardson noted that “[t]he right of the public to access civil proceedings is guaranteed by the First Amendment” and “absent a specific statutory authorization, a plaintiff does not have an absolute right to sue anonymously.” She commented that a party wishing to proceed with anonymity must file a complaint conditionally under a pseudonym and follow up with a request for court approval.

Protected Activity

Finding that TDE’s press release constitutes protected activity under §425.16, she concluded that it qualifies as both a statement “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” and as one “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a…judicial body.” She wrote:

“To the extent that the trial court held the press release is not protected because TDE inappropriately disclosed Plaintiffs’ names, that was in error….[P]laintiffs, absent a statutory authorization, may proceed anonymously only after they file a motion with the trial court to find an overriding interest supports their use of pseudonyms. Here, Plaintiffs never filed such a motion, and TDE violated no court order or rule when it disclosed Plaintiffs’ names.”

She added:

“We are, of course, sensitive to the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations, and they may have had a strong argument to remain anonymous. But it was incumbent on Plaintiffs to present their request to the trial court as soon as possible. Absent filing such a motion or a statutory basis, they simply had no ‘right’ to remain anonymous while suing in court.”

The jurist commented that “[w]e next conclude Plaintiffs cannot show a probability of prevailing on the merits because the disclosure of their names is protected by the fair report privilege” found at Civil Code §47, which shields a “fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of…a judicial…proceeding.”

Richardson explained that the privilege protects members of the media and those who communicate with such parties, saying:

“[T]he portion of the press release Plaintiffs challenge is the disclosure of their names. That specific portion represented the complaint 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 fact they unilaterally chose to use pseudonyms but had not yet requested permission to do so does not alter this fact.”

Rule Violation

As to Whitaker’s reliance on Rule 3.6, she responded:

“The trial court appeared to hold that the statement is not protected because the fair report privilege does not apply when the communication to a public journal violates rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct….But rule 3.6(b)(1) expressly allows lawyers to publicly communicate the ‘identity of the persons involved.’ ”

She continued:

“And…no court rule or order prohibited TDE from doing that in this action because Plaintiffs had not sought authorization from the court to proceed anonymously. This is the critical distinction: TDE did not communicate their identities while such a motion was pending. Thus, to the extent the court found that there was an exception to the fair report privilege, that was in error.”

Rejecting the plaintiffs’ contention that the disclosure of their names was not “a fair and true report” because their names were never part of the judicial record, Richardson said:

“The privilege, however, is not limited to fair and true reports of statements made in the proceedings. It protects statements ‘about the proceedings or of what was said in the proceedings.’…The fact that Plaintiffs’ names were not yet part of the judicial record when TDE issued its press release does not defeat the fair report privilege; it is still an accurate report about the proceeding.”

The case is Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment LLC, 2026 S.O.S. 3220.

San Francisco attorneys Shounak S. Dharap, Katherine A. Rabago, and Marissa M. Boling of Arns Davis Law, together with Brandon M. Banks of that city/county, acted for the plaintiffs on appeal and in the trial court.

TDE was represented by Jasjaap S. Sidhu and Jeremy B. Rosen of the Burbank-based Horvitz & Levy on appeal, and by its trial counsel, Martin D. Singer and Allison S. Hart of the Century City firm Singer Weinsten Wolf & Jonelis LLP.