A Los Angeles federal judge says that a woman accusing Diplo of sharing “revenge porn” must reveal her identity if she wants to proceed with her civil lawsuit against the star.

The case — which claims the DJ (Thomas Wesley Pentz) filmed sexual encounters and shared them on Snapchat — was filed by an unnamed “Jane Doe.” But in a ruling Tuesday (Dec. 31), Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani said the accuser had failed to legally show that she needs to remain anonymous.

The use of Doe pseudonyms has become common in sexual abuse complaints, and attorneys for Diplo’s accuser had argued that she would face retaliation if her name is revealed. But Judge Almadani said such treatment is reserved only for clear-cut, high-risk situations — and that the case against Diplo doesn’t qualify under that standard.

“The court appreciates that plaintiff’s allegations in her complaint are sensitive and of a highly personal nature, and that she may face some public scrutiny,” the judge wrote. “However, absent a demonstrated need for anonymity, there is a prevailing public interest in open judicial proceedings.”

The ruling is a win for Diplo, who has strongly denied the lawsuit’s allegations and argued that the plaintiff must reveal her name. In court filings, his lawyers had argued that he “cannot adequately confront his accuser without knowing her identity.”

In a complaint filed in June, Diplo’s accuser alleged she’d had a consensual sexual relationship with the DJ from 2016 to 2023, and that she occasionally “gave defendant Diplo permission to record them having sex.” But she said she later learned that he had sometimes secretly recorded them and then shared footage on the internet “without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.”

“Plaintiff brings this action to recover for the emotional and physical injuries she endured because of Diplo’s actions and to make sure no one else is forced to suffer the privacy invasions and physical and mental trauma she felt and continues to feel to this day,” Doe’s attorneys wrote.

The lawsuit accused Diplo of violating the federal Violence Against Women Act, which was amended in 2022 to ban the sharing of “intimate” images without the consent of those depicted in them. The case also cited an earlier revenge porn law enacted by the state of California.

In seeking to use the “Jane Doe” pseudonym, attorneys for Diplo’s accuser argued that she would face “personal embarrassment and social stigmatization” if her name were revealed. They warned that the DJ has a “large following,” and that when another woman spoke out about alleged revenge porn, she had faced “ridicule and threats to bodily harm.”

But in Tuesday’s decision, Judge Almadani said Doe had failed to supply hard evidence to support those claims — and that barring such proof, people using the American legal system must use their real names. The judge cited an earlier ruling that “the people have a right to know who is using their courts.”

“Those using the courts must be prepared to accept the public scrutiny that is an inherent part of public trials,” the judge wrote, quoting from another old ruling. “Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that this case warrants an exception.”

Though Almadani wasn’t swayed by fears of potential foul play, she pointedly warned both sides about avoiding any such behavior as the case moves forward — saying that she would “not tolerate any disrespect toward either party.”

“This case, like all other cases, shall be handled with professionalism and civility by all sides,” the judge wrote. “Any actual threats of retaliation or harassment shall be brought to the Court’s attention immediately.”

Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned requests for comment on Friday (Jan. 3).