A New York judge on Friday denied a request to impose a gag order in the civil case stemming from an alleged sexual assault at a Cornell University fraternity. Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond characterized the request as a "side show" aimed at "muddy[ing] the waters" and distracting from the core issues of the lawsuit.

The civil case was brought by a former Cornell student, identified as Jane Doe, who alleges she was sexually assaulted at the Chi Phi fraternity house in 2024. The request for a gag order sought to prevent lawyers and parties from commenting on the allegations outside of court, arguing it would mitigate potential juror prejudice and prevent the release of sensitive information that could lead to threats and doxing.

Judge Perry-Bond stated that public statements made by an attorney for one of the men named in the lawsuit did not provide a sufficient basis for limiting First Amendment rights. She noted that expressing opinions or reporting on the litigation's impact on clients, without more, does not meet the constitutional standard for restricting speech. The judge specifically addressed concerns about evidence spoliation, stating that isolated remarks were insufficient to demonstrate the serious risk of prejudice required by law.

While denying the gag order, the judge strongly encouraged the attorneys involved to collaborate on measures to protect their clients and others from threats, harassment, and doxing, acknowledging the notoriety the case has gained. "The Court believes that given the notoriety of doxing related to this case, it would serve all parties' interests to work together to ensure their clients and others may be safeguarded, to the extent possible, from being inundated with threats or harassment from malicious outside actors," Perry-Bond wrote.

The judge also criticized the lawyer who filed the gag order request for including an email exchange with opposing counsel in a court filing. Perry-Bond asserted that the court's docket should not be used to generate media controversy or facilitate "mudslinging," particularly by attorneys not directly involved in the case.

Attorneys for Jane Doe argued that attempts to rebut the claims had included leaking confidential documents and publicly questioning Doe's story. They stated these efforts to "shift the narrative" had been unsuccessful. The initial complaint was filed with campus police in November 2024, three weeks after the alleged incident.

The case highlights the complex intersection of civil litigation, public perception, and the protection of individuals' rights. The judge's decision underscores the high bar for imposing restrictions on speech in legal proceedings, emphasizing the constitutional protection of free expression.

This ruling means that, for now, parties involved in the civil lawsuit will continue to have the ability to speak publicly about the case, while the underlying allegations proceed through the legal process. The focus now returns to the merits of the claims and defenses, with the court's encouragement for parties to proactively address safety concerns.