Diddy Blasts Former Nanny Suing Him For Wrongful Termination After She Attempted To Have Him Sanctioned For Failing To Turn In Docs Regarding Case

Diddy

Diddy Blasts Former Nanny Suing Him For Wrongful Termination After She Attempted To Have Him Sanctioned For Failing To Turn In Docs Regarding Case

Media mogul Diddy had some professionally aggressive words for the former nanny he’s currently being sued by.

According to Radar Online, the billionaire recently submitted a court motion slamming his ex employee for – according to him – inaccurately claiming he was intentionally withholding evidence.

As we’ve been covering, Sean ‘Diddy‘ Combs is currently embroiled in a legal battle with his former baby sitter Raven Walden. The woman, who was employed by the musician from 2018 to 2020, claims that her employment as care taker of his twin daughters was terminated based on discrimination after she informed them of her pregnancy. In her suit, Walden says she was told that Diddy didn’t think an unmarried woman having a child was the best example for the girls he shares with his late ex Kim Porter, Jessie James and D’Lila, and thus ended her employment immediately.

Kim Porter, D’Lila, Jessie James

Walden and Diddy have been having legal exchanges about the lawsuit since. In one of the more recent court motions, Walden reportedly asked the court to sanction Diddy for $5,000. She accused him of allegedly failing to produce documents she believed were crucial to the case. Reportedly, some of the evidence requested pertained to her employment and termination, as well as the employment of others on Diddy’s payroll. However, the “Gotta Move On” artist has since responded to the motion, arguing that the discovery has already been submitted and lashed out at Walden for filing the sanction in the first place. His response reportedly read:

“Instead of filing the Motion and wasting Court and party resources, [Raven] should have consulted with the [Diddy] on a production schedule in order to understand when they would be producing the documents they committed to.”

And added:

“Sanctions are not warranted under these circumstances because the documents sought have been produced, the Motion was irrelevant to the [Diddy’s] production, and [Raven’s] counsel manufactured a dispute that did not exist.” 

In his initial response to the suit, Diddy denied that Walden’s firing was due to discrimination. He argued that her employment was always meant to be temporary following Porter’s passing. If you recall, the model suddenly transitioned from life after experiencing “flu-like” symptoms back in 2018. Walden claimed that she was Porter’s niece, and got extremely close to the family after she moved into Diddy’s L.A. mansion to care for the children at the time. However, the entertainer argued that the reason for her firing was simply due to being inadequate at completing her job duties.

A judge has reportedly not yet ruled about the sanction at this time.

Thoughts? Drop them for us in the comments section below!