Busta Rhymes asked a federal judge to tighten restrictions on court documents, citing fears his ex-assistant could leak evidence and sway public opinion before trial.
Busta Rhymes is asking a federal judge in Brooklyn to enforce a stricter protective order, claiming his former assistant could leak confidential case materials and jeopardize his right to a fair trial.
The Hip-Hop icon and his attorneys argue that sensitive items, such as private messages, videos, and arrest records, must remain sealed to prevent media exposure before trial.
This legal move comes as Rhymes battles both civil and criminal claims from Dashiel Gables, his former assistant. Gables filed a lawsuit in August 2025 seeking $6 million in damages.
He alleges Rhymes assaulted him in January in the lobby of the rapper’s Brooklyn apartment building, then fired him after he reported the incident to police.
The complaint also accuses Busta Rhymes of wage theft, workplace mistreatment and blacklisting him in the music industry. Rhymes has denied all wrongdoing and filed a countersuit in October, accusing Gables of defamation.
In court filings, he called the original lawsuit a “shake-down” and rejected claims that he assaulted Gables or forced employees to perform degrading tasks.
That includes an allegation that one assistant was told to unclog a toilet with his bare hand.
In the recent motion, Rhymes’ legal team warned that media coverage and online speculation have already “infected the case.”
They argued that even small leaks of discovery materials could sway public opinion and contaminate the jury pool.
“Minor disclosures of confidential material,” they wrote, “could have an outsized impact on the fairness of the proceedings.”
Gables’ attorneys pushed back, calling the motion an attempt to silence their client.
They described Rhymes’ defamation suit as a “retaliatory Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)” and said the issues in the case involve public safety and alleged misconduct by a well-known figure, matters they claim are protected by the First Amendment.
A briefing on the revised protective order is scheduled for later this month.
Related
