Diddy Fights Ex-Nanny’s Demand For Sanctions After She Accuses Mogul of Refusing to Turn Over Documents in Court
Diddy is fighting back.
Dec. 28 2023, Published 9:40 a.m. ET
Diddy asked a judge to shut down his ex-nanny’s attempt to have him sanctioned in court as part of her wrongful termination lawsuit.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the music mogul responded to his ex-employee Raven Walden’s claim he had refused to turn over discovery in the case.
Diddy denies Raven's claims.
Raven claimed she had asked for information and documents pertaining to her employment with Diddy, other employees, and children.
The nanny, who worked for Diddy from 2018 to 2020, sued the entertainer for wrongful termination. Raven, who claimed to be Diddy’s late ex Kim Porter’s niece, said she was hired after Kim’s death to take care of Diddy and Kim’s twins, Jessie James and D’Lila.
Raven said she moved into Diddy’s mansion in Los Angeles and became extremely close with the family. She claimed to have been terminated in August 2020 after she informed Diddy’s team, she was pregnant.
Raven said she was informed she was being let go because Diddy didn’t think it was good for his daughters to see an unmarried pregnant woman.
Diddy and Kim Porter.
Raven’s lawsuit demanded unspecified damages.
After the lawsuit was filed, Diddy’s rep called the entire case nothing but a “meritless shakedown.” Diddy admitted Raven worked for him but said the suit was an effort to “extort him.”
Diddy denied Raven was hired as a long-term employee and said she was only meant to be a temporary hire.
His rep said, “Her babysitting services were always intended to be temporary especially since the girls were getting older and spending most of the day at school.”
The entertainer also denied Raven was actually Kim’s niece.
DAILY. BREAKING. CELEBRITY NEWS. ALL FREE.
Diddy and Kim Porter.
In court filings, Diddy argued Raven had failed to properly perform her job duties.
He claimed her suit should be dismissed due to her failure to “satisfactorily perform her job responsibilities, and otherwise conduct herself in accordance with the standards and policies of Combs Defendants.”
Diddy argued the decision to terminate Raven was not discriminatory.
As we first reported, recently, Raven asked the court to sanction Diddy for allegedly failing to produce documents she believed were crucial to the case.
Her lawyers have demanded Diddy and his team turn over documents concerning Raven’s employee and termination. Her lawyer said, “Defendants have been completely evasive in their discovery responses.”
Diddy trashed Raven for having even filed the motion.
“Instead of filing the Motion and wasting Court and party resources, [Raven] should have consulted with the [Diddy] on a production schedule in order to understand when they would be producing the documents they committed to. Sanctions are not warranted under these circumstances because the documents sought have been produced, the Motion was irrelevant to the [Diddy’s] production, and [Raven’s] counsel manufactured a dispute that did not exist.”
A judge has yet to rule.