More stories

  • in

    Cardi B Awarded $1.25 Million in Libel Lawsuit Against Blogger Tasha K

    A federal jury awarded the rapper Cardi B around $4 million in a libel lawsuit against a celebrity gossip blogger who had posted videos in 2018 claiming that she was a prostitute who had contracted sexually transmitted infections and used cocaine.Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, had sued the celebrity gossiper, known as Tasha K, in 2019 for posting more than 20 videos that spread “malicious rumors” about the rapper, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where Tasha K lives.The jury found Tasha K, whose real name is Latasha Kebe, liable on two counts of slander and one count each of libel and invasion of privacy, according to a verdict filed on Monday.The jury awarded Ms. Almanzar $1.25 million on Monday and an additional $2.8 million on Tuesday, according to separate verdicts filed on Monday and Tuesday. The award includes $25,000 for medical expenses and around $1.3 million to cover the rapper’s legal fees.Ms. Kebe had also posted in 2018 that Ms. Almanzar had herpes outbreaks in her mouth and that she would give birth to a child with intellectual disabilities.Ms. Almanzar, 29, testified in court this month that she “felt extremely suicidal” after Ms. Kebe posted the videos, adding that “only an evil person could do that,” Lisa Moore, a lawyer for Ms. Almanzar, said on Monday.In the lawsuit, the rapper’s lawyers said that the content would damage her reputation with her fans and affect her business prospects. Cardi B, a Grammy-winning rapper from the Bronx, found fame in 2017 with her song “Bodak Yellow,” which immortalized her propensity for making “money moves.”Ms. Kebe’s claims have helped her amass millions of views on Twitter, Instagram and her YouTube channel, unWinewithTashaK. Most of the content can still be viewed online, even though the rapper sent Ms. Kebe a cease-and-desist letter a few months after Ms. Kebe first posted about her in 2018, according to the lawsuit.Ms. Almanzar’s lawyers said Ms. Kebe was “obsessed with slandering” the rapper, and that she posted the content because it got more views than her other posts, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Almanzar’s lawyers said that the rapper was not a prostitute, had never had herpes and had never used cocaine.In a statement on Tuesday, Ms. Kebe’s lawyers, Olga Izmaylova and Sadeer Sabbak, said they disagreed with the verdict and planned to appeal it.On Monday afternoon, Ms. Kebe said on Twitter that “My Husband, Attorney’s, & I fought really hard,” adding, “it’s only up from here.”Ms. Almanzar had filed the lawsuit against both Ms. Kebe and Starmarie Ebony Jones, a guest on Ms. Kebe’s YouTube channel who had claimed to be a former friend of the rapper.Ms. Jones was not included in the verdict on Monday because she moved to New York after Ms. Almanzar sued her, the rapper’s lawyers said. The lawyers filed another lawsuit against her in New York, where she was found liable last year on counts of libel, slander and invasion of privacy. A lawyer for Ms. Jones could not immediately be reached for comment on Monday night.This case was not the first time the rapper found herself in court. She was indicted in Queens in 2019 in connection with a fight in a strip club the year before. The case is still ongoing. More

  • in

    Cardi B Awarded $1.25 Million in Libel Lawsuit Against Celebrity Gossip Blogger

    The rapper sued the YouTuber Tasha K in 2019 after she posted a series of videos claiming that Cardi B was a prostitute.A federal jury on Monday awarded the rapper Cardi B $1.25 million in damages in a libel lawsuit against a celebrity gossip blogger who had posted videos in 2018 claiming that she was a prostitute who had contracted sexually transmitted infections and used cocaine.Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, had sued the celebrity gossiper, known as Tasha K, in 2019 for posting more than 20 videos that spread “malicious rumors” about the rapper, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where Tasha K lives.The jury found Tasha K, whose real name is Latasha Kebe, liable on two counts of slander and one count each of libel and invasion of privacy, according to a verdict filed on Monday.Ms. Kebe had also posted in 2018 that Ms. Almanzar had herpes outbreaks in her mouth and that she would give birth to a child with intellectual disabilities.Ms. Almanzar, 29, testified in court this month that she “felt extremely suicidal” after Ms. Kebe posted the videos, adding that “only an evil person could do that,” Lisa Moore, a lawyer for Ms. Almanzar, said on Monday.In the lawsuit, the rapper’s lawyers said that the content would damage her reputation with her fans and affect her business prospects. Cardi B, a Grammy-winning rapper from the Bronx, found fame in 2017 with her song “Bodak Yellow,” which immortalized her propensity for making “money moves.”Ms. Kebe’s claims have helped her amass millions of views on Twitter, Instagram and her YouTube channel, unWinewithTashaK. Most of the content can still be viewed online, even though the rapper sent Ms. Kebe a cease-and-desist letter a few months after Ms. Kebe first posted about her in 2018, according to the lawsuit.Ms. Almanzar’s lawyers said Ms. Kebe was “obsessed with slandering” the rapper, and that she posted the content because it got more views than her other posts, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Almanzar’s lawyers said that the rapper was not a prostitute, had never had herpes and had never used cocaine.Ms. Kebe’s lawyers did not immediately respond to emails or phone calls on Monday.On Monday afternoon, Ms. Kebe said on Twitter that “My Husband, Attorney’s, & I fought really hard,” adding, “it’s only up from here.”Ms. Almanzar had filed the lawsuit against both Ms. Kebe and Starmarie Ebony Jones, a guest on Ms. Kebe’s YouTube channel who had claimed to be a former friend of the rapper.Ms. Jones was not included in the verdict on Monday because she moved to New York after Ms. Almanzar sued her, the rapper’s lawyers said. The lawyers filed another lawsuit against her in New York, where she was found liable last year on counts of libel, slander and invasion of privacy. A lawyer for Ms. Jones could not immediately be reached for comment on Monday night.This case was not the first time the rapper found herself in court. She was indicted in Queens in 2019 in connection with a fight in a strip club the year before. The case is still ongoing. More

  • in

    The Surveillance Apparatus That Surrounded Britney Spears

    An account by a former employee of the security team hired by Ms. Spears’s father created the most detailed portrait yet of the singer’s life under 13 years of conservatorship.Britney Spears’s father and the security firm he hired to protect her ran an intense surveillance apparatus that monitored her communications and secretly captured audio recordings from her bedroom, including her interactions and conversations with her boyfriend and children, according to a former employee of the security firm.Alex Vlasov, the employee, supported his claims with emails, text messages and audio recordings he was privy to in his nine years as an executive assistant and operations and cybersecurity manager for Black Box, the security firm. He came forward for a new documentary by The New York Times, “Controlling Britney Spears,” which was released on Friday.Recording conversations in a private place and mirroring text messages without the consent of both parties can be a violation of the law. It is unclear if the court overseeing Ms. Spears’s conservatorship was aware of or had approved the surveillance. Mr. Vlasov’s account, and his trove of materials, create the most detailed portrait yet of what Ms. Spears’s life has been like under the conservatorship for the past 13 years. Mr. Vlasov said the relentless surveillance operation had helped several people linked to the conservatorship — primarily her father, James P. Spears — control nearly every aspect of her life.“It really reminded me of somebody that was in prison,” said Mr. Vlasov, 30. “And security was put in a position to be the prison guards essentially.”In response to detailed questions from The Times, a lawyer for Mr. Spears issued a statement: “All of his actions were well within the parameters of the authority conferred upon him by the court. His actions were done with the knowledge and consent of Britney, her court-appointed attorney, and/or the court. Jamie’s record as conservator — and the court’s approval of his actions — speak for themselves.”Alex Vlasov, a former employee of Black Box Security, decided to share his information after hearing Ms. Spears’s speech to the court in June. He said a surveillance operation had helped several people linked to the conservatorship control nearly every aspect of Ms. Spears’s life.Victor Tadashi SuarezEdan Yemini, the chief executive and founder of Black Box Security, also did not respond to detailed questions. In a statement, his lawyer said, “Mr. Yemini and Black Box have always conducted themselves within professional, ethical and legal bounds, and they are particularly proud of their work in keeping Ms. Spears safe for many years.”Ms. Spears’s lawyer, Mathew S. Rosengart, said in a statement: “Any unauthorized intercepting or monitoring of Britney’s communications — especially attorney-client communications, which are a sacrosanct part of the legal system — would represent a shameful violation of her privacy rights and a striking example of the deprivation of her civil liberties.”“Placing a listening device in Britney’s bedroom would be particularly inexcusable and disgraceful, and corroborates so much of her compelling, poignant testimony,” Mr. Rosengart said. “These actions must be fully and aggressively investigated.”Mr. Vlasov said his superiors had often told him that the severe surveillance measures were necessary to properly protect Ms. Spears and that she wanted to be in the conservatorship. He said he had felt compelled to share his information after hearing Ms. Spears’s comments to the court in June, when she excoriated the judicial system, her conservators and her managers. She called the arrangement abusive.Ms. Spears’s father, who is known as Jamie, was appointed conservator in 2008, shortly after Ms. Spears was twice taken to the hospital by ambulance for involuntary psychiatric evaluations amid a series of public struggles and concerns around her mental health and potential substance abuse. He was given broad control over her life and her estate, including the power to retain round-the-clock security for Ms. Spears.Mr. Spears and others involved in the conservatorship have insisted that it was a smooth-running operation that worked in the best interest of his daughter. But in the wake of Ms. Spears’s comments in court in June, the judge authorized her to choose her own lawyer, Mr. Rosengart, for the first time. Mr. Rosengart swiftly filed to remove Mr. Spears as the conservator of the singer’s estate. After consistently arguing that there were no grounds for his removal, Mr. Spears abruptly asked the court on Sept. 7 to consider whether to terminate the conservatorship entirely.Mr. Rosengart’s and Mr. Spears’s requests are expected to be considered at a hearing scheduled for Sept. 29.The security companyThe security team’s role has long been a mystery.Mr. Yemini, the Black Box Security founder, was born in Israel, and is described on a company website as having a background in the Israeli Special Forces. The Spears account helped Black Box grow from a tiny operation to a prominent player in the celebrity security industry. It counts the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey among its clients.Mr. Vlasov joined Black Box in 2012 as a 21-year-old college student, excited by the opportunity to master the security industry. He started as Mr. Yemini’s assistant and grew into a role that encompassed wide responsibilities over operations and digital management. “I did everything from write his messages, write his emails, to be on all phone conversations in order to take notes for him,” Mr. Vlasov said. “I was the only person at Black Box that knew everything, really.”He generally worked at Black Box’s office in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles and seldom saw Ms. Spears in person, he said. But through the surveillance apparatus and his close work with Mr. Yemini and his colleagues, Mr. Vlasov said, he had a uniquely comprehensive view of her life.Edan Yemini with Ms. Spears in 2009. Mr. Yemini is the chief executive and founder of Black Box Security.AlamyMr. Vlasov said that Ms. Spears’s phone had been monitored using a clever tech setup: The iCloud account on her phone was mirrored on an iPad and later on an iPod. Mr. Yemini would have Mr. Vlasov encrypt Ms. Spears’s digital communications captured on the iPad and the iPod to send to Mr. Spears and Robin Greenhill, an employee of Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group, the former business manager for the singer’s estate.This arrangement allowed them to monitor all text messages, FaceTime calls, notes, browser history and photographs.“Her own phone and her own private conversations were used so often to control her,” Mr. Vlasov said.In response to questions about the surveillance operation, a lawyer for Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group said: “These allegations are not true. Ms. Greenhill was only involved in Ms. Spears’ security to the extent Ms. Spears requested her involvement, as well as Tri Star’s role of issuing the payments to the security company.” The lawyer did not respond to follow-up questions specifically asking whether Ms. Greenhill had ever received copies of or reports on the contents of Ms. Spears’s text communications.Mr. Vlasov said the reason Mr. Yemini had given for monitoring Ms. Spears’s phone was to protect her from harm and bad influences. But Mr. Spears monitored his daughter’s text-message conversations with her mother, her boyfriend, her close friends and even her court-appointed lawyer, according to screenshots of messages provided to The Times.Mr. Vlasov’s accounts of how Ms. Spears’s life was controlled by the security team were confirmed by others with firsthand knowledge of the conservatorship who requested anonymity. They said Ms. Spears essentially could not leave her home without the presence of security personnel, who would inform Mr. Yemini, Mr. Spears and Ms. Greenhill of the singer’s movements via group chat.Ms. Spears with her father in 2013. As part of the conservatorship, Mr. Spears was given broad control over his daughter’s life and her estate, including the power to retain round-the-clock security.RS-Jack/X17online.comAs conservator of the estate, Mr. Spears controls his 39-year-old daughter’s nearly $60 million fortune and has the authority to employ workers for her.Mr. Vlasov said Mr. Yemini and another Black Box employee had once given him a portable USB drive and asked him to delete the audio recordings on it.“I had them tell me what was on it,” Mr. Vlasov said. “They seemed very nervous and said that it was extremely sensitive, that nobody can ever know about this and that’s why I need to delete everything on it, so there’s no record of it. That raised so many red flags with me and I did not want to be complicit in whatever they were involved in, so I kept a copy, because I don’t want to delete evidence.”The drive, he discovered, contained audio recordings from a device that was secretly placed in Ms. Spears’s bedroom — more than 180 hours of recordings. Mr. Vlasov said he had thought the timing was curious because some of the recordings were made around the time that a court investigator visited Ms. Spears to perform a periodic review in September 2016.The New York Times reviewed the recordings to confirm their authenticity.When asked why he had continued working with Black Box despite harboring so many concerns, Mr. Vlasov said he had feared the amount of power Mr. Yemini and others had, and the possibility that they could damage his job prospects in the industry.After Ms. Spears’s impassioned remarks to the court in June, Mr. Vlasov said, his mind-set changed.Choosing to leave Black Box in April was the best decision of his life, he said, and he believes going public is the right thing to do. “I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow, but I’ve never regretted it,” he said.‘She did not want to be there’Ms. Spears spent time at a mental health treatment facility in 2019 — a stay that appears to have been a turning point in the conservatorship. Who exactly sent her there, for what reason and whether she went on her own volition are in dispute.Mr. Spears and others involved with the conservatorship have said that she consented to go to the facility and that she was aware that no one could force her to stay. Conservators are not allowed to force a conservatee into a mental health treatment facility against their will.“She did not want to be there,” Mr. Vlasov said. “I heard this from multiple people, including Robin and Jamie themselves when they would talk on the phone to Edan. I overheard multiple conversations where they knew Britney didn’t want to be there.”The Times obtained text messages that Ms. Spears had sent from the facility that said she felt she was there involuntarily and that she could not leave, noting that security personnel were at the door at all times. Ms. Spears told a judge later in 2019 that she had felt she was forced into the facility, according to a transcript of the closed-door hearing. She repeated that claim to the court publicly in June.Mr. Vlasov shared digital communication that showed how Ms. Spears, while in the facility, had tried to hire a new lawyer to replace her court-appointed lawyer — and that Mr. Spears and others had monitored that effort.Ms. Spears with Robin Greenhill, an employee of Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group. Mr. Vlasov said that Ms. Spears’s phone had been monitored using a clever tech setup: The iCloud account on her phone was mirrored on an iPad and an iPod.AlamyThe prospective lawyer asked Ms. Spears if he could come talk to her. Ms. Spears responded that she didn’t think the security personnel would let her see him. “They will say no for sure to me seeing a new lawyer on my side,” she said, and proposed that he tell the security personnel that he was a plumber instead. The lawyer declined that plan. “You have to be approved by the court before I hire you, but I don’t understand how can I know I want to hire you unless I meet with you first?” Ms. Spears wrote.“Yes, it’s a Catch-22 situation,” the lawyer said.In a text message sent a week after the initial exchange with the lawyer, Ms. Spears said that Mr. Spears had taken away her phone after finding out that she had been talking to a lawyer.The lawyer confirmed to The Times that the correspondence provided by Mr. Vlasov was accurate.Mr. Vlasov recalled that “one of the biggest ‘aha,’ red-flag moments” in his tenure at Black Box had happened in August 2020, when Ms. Spears’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, sent an email to Mr. Spears’s lawyers and Mr. Yemini asking for written confirmation that Ms. Spears’s new phone was not being monitored.“Ethically, I need to get written confirmation that no one other than my client can access her calls, voice-mail messages or texts directly or indirectly,” Mr. Ingham wrote in the email, which was reviewed by The Times.Geraldine Wyle, a lawyer for Mr. Spears, responded: “Jamie confirms that he has no access to her calls, voice-mail messages, or texts.”Ms. Spears in Paris for her “Piece of Me” tour in 2018. The following year, the singer spent time at a mental health treatment facility — a stay that appears to have been a turning point in the conservatorship.Marc Piasecki/Getty ImagesIn response to questions from The Times about the exchange, Ms. Wyle said, “Mr. Spears’ actions have always been proper, and in strict conformity with the law, and the orders of the Los Angeles Superior Court.”Mr. Ingham did not respond to requests for comment.Mr. Spears was particularly interested in Ms. Spears’s boyfriends, Mr. Vlasov said. The security team tailed her boyfriends in a continuing effort to look for incriminating behavior or other evidence that they might be a bad influence on Ms. Spears, he said.“There was an obsession with the men in Britney’s life,” Mr. Vlasov said.Her boyfriends were required to sign strict nondisclosure agreements, Mr. Vlasov said. An agreement signed in 2020 by her boyfriend at the time, Sam Asghari, who is now her fiancé, technically forbade him to post on social media about Ms. Spears without Mr. Spears’s prior written approval.In a confidential report by a court investigator that was obtained by The Times, the investigator wrote in 2016 that Ms. Spears had told her that she could not befriend people, especially men, without her father’s approval and that the men she wanted to date were “followed by private investigators to make sure their behaviors are acceptable to her father.”Mr. Vlasov said that Black Box Security had billed more than $100,000 in 2014 for investigating and surveilling Ms. Spears’s boyfriend at the time. The boyfriend, David Lucado, told The Times that he had been aware at the time that he was being followed by private investigators, and he said he had called 911 twice because of dangerous tailing situations. He said he believed he might have been more of a target because he was encouraging Ms. Spears to understand her legal rights under the conservatorship.‘Free Britney’ draws attentionAnother object of intense interest among those controlling Ms. Spears’s life, Mr. Vlasov said, was the so-called Free Britney movement, a growing cohort of fans that in recent years has brought heightened attention to the conservatorship case. Black Box Security sent investigators to infiltrate the group at a rally in April 2019 and to develop dossiers on some of the more active participants.“Undercover investigators were placed within the crowds to talk to fans to ID them, to document who they were,” Mr. Vlasov said. “It was all under the umbrella of ‘this is for Britney’s protection.’” He shared surveillance photographs with The Times that corresponded to photos posted by Free Britney participants that day.Megan Radford, a member of the so-called Free Britney movement, was classified as “a high risk due to her creation and sharing of information.”via Megan RadfordBlack Box prepared a “threat assessment report” dated July 2020 that included background information on several fans within the movement, including people who had popular podcasts and social media accounts like “Britney’s Gram,” “Eat, Pray, Britney,” “Lawyers for Britney” and Diet Prada. One activist, described as a young mother in Oklahoma, Megan Radford, was classified as “a high risk due to her creation and sharing of information.”An email from August 2020 sent by Mr. Yemini discussed the possibility of surveilling Kevin Wu, a fan who runs the prominent Twitter account Free Britney L.A.“They were extremely nervous, because they had zero control over the Free Britney movement and what’s going to come out of it,” Mr. Vlasov said.The fees for surveilling Ms. Spears’s boyfriend and the Free Britney participants, Mr. Vlasov said, were billed to Ms. Spears’s estate. More

  • in

    A Kevin Spacey Accuser Tried to Sue Anonymously. A Judge Said No.

    As sexual assault cases proliferate, judges must weigh accusers’ requests for anonymity against the tradition of open courts and fairness toward defendants.The man said he was 14 years old when he was sexually assaulted by the actor Kevin Spacey in the early 1980s. Last year he filed a lawsuit against Mr. Spacey in which he sought to maintain anonymity, identifying himself in court papers only as “C.D.”Earlier this year the judge in the case, which is being heard in the Southern District in New York, ordered the man’s lawyers to identify him privately to Mr. Spacey’s lawyers. And this month the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, went further: he ruled that C.D. would have to identify himself publicly if he wanted to continue on to trial.The man’s lawyers responded Thursday that he would not, writing that the “sudden unwanted attention that revelation of his identity will cause is simply too much for him to bear.” They said in a letter to the court that they expect him to be removed from the case — which involves another plaintiff, who is using his real name — but suggested that they plan to pursue an appeal.In the #MeToo era, as more people have been turning to civil courts with accounts of sexual assault, judges are increasingly being asked to weigh the strong desire of many accusers to maintain their anonymity against the presumption of openness in the court system and the ability of the accused to defend themselves.“It’s the idea of balancing an open court system with the idea of protecting someone’s right to seek relief,” said Jayne S. Ressler, an associate professor of law at Brooklyn Law School.While anonymity has long been allowed under certain limited circumstances if it protects an accuser from harassment or other harm, courts tend to weigh it against the general principle that complaints must name both the defendant and accuser.The issue tends to come down to whether the benefits of anonymity, and of allowing a victim to come forward freely, outweigh the public’s interest in being able to scrutinize what is happening in the courts and the defendant’s ability to mount an effective defense.People who work to combat sexual violence warn that requiring people to use their own names could discourage some victims from seeking justice.“The risk of being publicly identified is a huge deterrent to coming forward for many survivors of sexual violence,” said Erinn Robinson, a spokeswoman for RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. “Decisions in these cases should always be made with a trauma-informed and victim-centered understanding of the impact this can have on survivors’ healing.”Harvey Weinstein arrives at State Supreme Court in Manhattan in February 2020.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesBut lawyers for the accused said that it is difficult to mount a defense against people who file cases anonymously, or using pseudonyms. “An increasing amount of lawsuits will attempt to be filed under a pseudonym, and that’s concerning because the justice system in our country has as its fabric an open court system and a level playing field,” said Imran H. Ansari, a lawyer who represents Harvey Weinstein.It is not uncommon these days for accusers to bring sexual assault cases anonymously and then, if they fail to negotiate settlements out of court, to be ordered by judges to come forward in their own name before taking their claims to trial, legal experts said.Last month, state court judges in Texas said that most of the 22 women who had sued Deshaun Watson, the Houston Texans star quarterback, had to identify themselves, even after they said they feared intimidation efforts.A judge in New York federal court last September denied a woman’s request to sue Mr. Weinstein anonymously. (The case has since been voluntarily withdrawn.)Professor Ressler said that though the principle of the open court still dominated many decisions, she had detected an uptick in sympathy from courts toward sexual assault plaintiffs suing anonymously.“It appears that some courts are less reluctant to allow anonymity, let’s put it like that,” she said. “Most judges do tend to rule against anonymity, but not all.”She pointed to a 2018 case in New York Supreme Court where a trial judge allowed a number of plaintiffs to proceed anonymously against a doctor, and a Massachusetts Superior Court case in 2019 when a court imposed anonymity on a plaintiff, who was a student.One of Mr. Spacey’s other accusers, a massage therapist who had accused Mr. Spacey of groping and trying to kiss him before offering him oral sex during a massage, was permitted by a federal judge in California to file a lawsuit under a pseudonym, although that case was dismissed after the plaintiff died unexpectedly ahead of the trial.Experts say that in the #MeToo era, some courts are becoming more understanding of the high costs sexual assault victims pay personally when they come forward publicly.There is also more acknowledgment that in the modern hyper-connected society, when information spreads widely and quickly online and remains easily searchable for years, there is less chance of privacy once a name becomes public.“There is a sense that your name can live on in perpetuity connected with something terrible, so you have to have a chance without your name being associated with it,” said Andrew Miltenberg, a lawyer who has represented men accused of sexual assault.Even so, Mr. Miltenberg said, eventually, “A judge tends to say, ‘Yes, you can proceed like that but know that if we end up in front of a jury, think very hard, because I am going to open the court.’”Mr. Spacey, 61, has faced a series of sexual misconduct allegations in recent years.In 2018, he was charged with sexual assault in Nantucket, Mass., after an 18-year-old man accused him of fondling him in a restaurant two years earlier. But prosecutors there dropped the case after the accuser invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to continue testifying after Mr. Spacey’s lawyer warned that he could be charged with a felony if he had deleted evidence from his cellphone.In the most recent case, the plaintiff, identified as “C.D.,” claimed that he met Mr. Spacey as a teenager in an acting class in Westchester County in the early 1980s.According to the lawsuit, Mr. Spacey invited the student to his apartment when they met again a few years later and he was still a minor, and “engaged in sexual acts” with him on multiple different occasions. In their final encounter, Mr. Spacey assaulted the teenager despite his resisting and saying “no,” the lawsuit said.In an interview with BuzzFeed News in 2017, the actor Anthony Rapp accused Mr. Spacey of making an inappropriate sexual advance toward Mr. Rapp when he was 14.Evan Agostini/Invision, via Associated PressC.D. filed the lawsuit with another accuser, Anthony Rapp, who first made accusations against Mr. Spacey in 2017. Mr. Spacey has denied C.D.’s and Mr. Rapp’s sexual misconduct accusations.In court papers, lawyers for C.D. argued that he would suffer psychological trauma if his name became public.“The thought of my name being circulated in the media and on the internet and of people contacting me as a victim of Kevin Spacey terrifies me,” C.D. wrote in court papers.But the case raised questions about the difficulty of defending a sexual assault case when the accuser insists on remaining anonymous.Even after the court had ruled that Mr. Spacey’s lawyers should privately be told C.D.’s real name, they argued that their ability to conduct discovery and investigate C.D.’s claims would be hampered if he could maintain his anonymity toward the public. They would be unable to disclose his name to witnesses, they noted, while potential witnesses who could have relevant information might not come forward if his real name was not publicized.Mr. Spacey’s “ability to investigate and conduct discovery of CD’s claims and prepare for trial would be severely inhibited,” his lawyers wrote in legal documents.Judge Kaplan agreed.He conceded that privacy was diminished by the internet and that the case involved sensitive and personal issues, both points arguing for anonymity.However, in ruling for shedding anonymity, the judge emphasized that C.D. himself had spoken to people about Mr. Spacey as far back at the 1990s, and had given an anonymous interview about Mr. Spacey to Vulture in 2017. He also noted that C.D. is no longer a child.“Though CD brings allegations relating to alleged sexual abuse as a minor, he now is an adult in his 50s who has chosen to level serious charges against a defendant in the public eye,” Judge Kaplan wrote. “Fairness requires that he be prepared to stand behind his charges publicly.”Both a lawyer for C.D., Peter J. Saghir, and for Spacey, Chase A. Scolnick, declined to comment.Experts said criminal cases offer greater anonymity protection to sexual assault victims than civil cases. In civil claims, the two parties often try to negotiate a settlement, and in practice few cases in fact proceed to trial. A judge’s ruling to lift anonymity sometimes acts as a catalyst to force a settlement, legal experts said.Lawyers for plaintiffs say they urge their clients to be realistic when it comes to seeking anonymity.“When you represent these survivors you have to tell them, there is no guarantee you are going to be able to proceed anonymously,” said John C. Clune, a lawyer who represented a plaintiff who had to refile a case against Kobe Bryant under her real name in a 2004 civil case. “They know they have a fighting chance, but they are also prepared mentally in case they lose.” More