A federal judge in the Northern District of California has determined there is “no reasonable factual basis” to support claims that Druski was involved in the alleged gang rape at the center of a lawsuit against Diddy and others.
According to court documents obtained by Complex, the judge ordered the plaintiffs’ attorneys to explain why they should not face sanctions for continuing to include Druski in the case. However, the court did deny Druski’s initial motion seeking sanctions over his inclusion.
The suit, filed by Ashley Parham, accuses Diddy, Kristina Khorram, Shane Pearce, and others of gang-raping her on March 23, 2018, in Orinda, California. Parham first filed in October 2024, later amending the complaint on March 13, 2025, to add Druski (initially identified as “Doe 1”), along with two new plaintiffs, Jane Doe and John Doe. The amended complaint directly alleged that Druski took part in Parham’s assault. The Doe plaintiffs also claim they were abducted, trafficked, and witnessed the attack, with Jane Doe alleging she was assaulted by another defendant.
Druski quickly moved for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires attorneys to ensure factual support and conduct a reasonable investigation before filing claims. Filed on May 9, 2025, his motion argued the allegations were baseless.
His legal team presented debit card and phone records that the judge said “almost certainly” prove Druski was in Georgia at the time of the alleged incident—making his involvement “highly improbable.” Plaintiffs’ lawyers countered that the phone records were tied to his mother, Cheryl Desbordes, and might only show an area code instead of a true location.
The court rejected that reasoning, pointing out that Druski still uses the same number, the records lined up with his banking activity, and the phone logs showed consistent movement across different Atlanta-area locations.
As a result, the plaintiffs’ attorneys must now show cause by September 9, 2025, why they should not be sanctioned for maintaining claims against him. Those sanctions could include dismissal or attorneys’ fees. Rather than fight it, the plaintiffs may ultimately decide to voluntarily drop Druski from the case.
