In Ithaca, New York, attorney Thomas Giuffra, representing Jane Doe, filed a letter on Wednesday urging a Tompkins County Supreme Court judge to deny a proposed gag order in the civil case against Cornell University and seven men accused of sexually assaulting her in 2024. Giuffra argues the order is premature, overly broad, and would unfairly limit his ability to speak publicly about the matter.
Denial of media leaks
Giuffra also refuted claims that he leaked confidential Title IX investigation records to The New York Times or other outlets. He said he possesses the records but has declined journalists’ requests because the parties agreed the materials would remain confidential during Cornell’s Title IX proceedings. Giuffra offered to submit emails and text messages showing that media outlets sought the records and that he refused those requests.
Accusations against defendants’ counsel
Instead, Giuffra accused the defendants’ attorneys of leaking portions of the records to selected media. “The Title IX leaks have not come from any representative of the Plaintiff,” he wrote.
Background of the gag‑order request
The gag‑order request originated from counsel for defendant Diego Sarabia, who asked the court to limit public statements by attorneys and parties, alleging that Giuffra was conducting an orchestrated media campaign that could prejudice the case. No gag order has been issued to date.
Giuffra’s response to the criticism
Giuffra disputed the characterization of his media appearances as an “orchestrated campaign,” stating that most of his public comments have been responses to reporters’ questions and to what he described as leaks and public attacks against his client. He also criticized attorneys who are not formally representing the defendants but have publicly discussed Jane Doe’s allegations and credibility.
Impact on Jane Doe and her family
Giuffra said the public debate intensified after portions of the confidential Title IX records became public, leading to threats, harassment, and attempts to identify Jane Doe. He recounted a swatting incident at her family’s home that resulted in police confronting her father, brother, and friends with weapons drawn, and noted that his own family has also received threats.
Legal arguments against the gag order
Giuffra contends that the proposed restrictions would create an uneven playing field by limiting his speech while allowing outside parties to continue speaking publicly. He also argues the order is too vague, potentially prohibiting statements that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the case without clearly defining what would violate the order. Giuffra suggests that less restrictive measures—such as careful jury selection and juror instructions—could address concerns about publicity without curbing speech.
Cornell’s response
Cornell University separately responded, asking the court to clarify the gag‑order language. The university warned that the order, as drafted, could restrict speech by students, employees, and community members who are not parties to the case and might interfere with Cornell’s legal obligations.
Original reporting: CNY Central WSTM (Sinclair) – local — read the source article.
