A federal judge in the Northern District of California has ruled that there appears to be "no reasonable factual basis" for the plaintiffs to continue alleging that Druski participated in the alleged gang rape central to a lawsuit against Diddy and others.
According to a recent court filing obtained by Complex, the court has ordered the plaintffs' counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be issued for their continued pursuit of claims against Druski. The court also denied Druski's initial motion for sanctions regarding his inclusion in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed by Ashley Parham, alleges she was gang-raped on March 23, 2018, in Orinda, California. Initially filed on October 15, 2024, Parham's complaint named Diddy, Kristina Khorram, Shane Pearce, and others.
Druski, identified as "Doe 1" in the initial complaint, was added as a defendant on March 13, 2025, in an amended complaint filed by Parham and two additional plaintiffs, Jane Doe and John Doe. The amended complaint explicitly alleged Druski participated in Parham's gang rape. The Doe plaintiffs also allege they were abducted, trafficked, and witnessed Parham's assault, with Jane Doe reportedly sexually assaulted by another defendant.
Following his inclusion, Druski moved for sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 requires attorneys to have a factual basis for allegations and to conduct a reasonable investigation before filing a lawsuit. Druski's motion, filed on May 9, 2025, contended that the claims against him were frivolous.
Druski's counsel had also provided evidence, including debit card records and phone records, that, per the judge, "almost certainly" show he was in Georgia at the time of the alleged rape, making his participation "highly improbable." Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the phone records were registered to Druski's mother, Cheryl Desbordes, and that the phone records might only reflect an originating area code rather than the call's actual location.
However, the court found these arguments unconvincing, noting that Druski still uses the same phone number, the records align with his bank records, and the phone records show a pattern of activity in different Atlanta-area locations, not just one area code.
As a result, plaintiffs' counsel has been ordered to show cause by September 9, 2025, why their representations about a factual basis for naming Druski do not warrant sanctions, potentially in the form of dismissal or attorneys' fees. Instead of risking all that, the plaintiffs may instead just choose to voluntarily dismiss him from the lawsuit.