Federal Judge Denies Sean “Diddy” Combs’ Lawyers’ Request to Delay Criminal Trial

In a pivotal ruling in the federal sex‑trafficking prosecution of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on Friday rejected the defense’s motion to postpone the May trial date. The decision cements a trial schedule that both sides have vigorously negotiated since Combs’s indictment in the Southern District of New York.

Background of the Indictment

On March 12, 2024, a grand jury returned a ten‑count superseding indictment against Sean Combs, 54, alleging that beginning in 2016 and continuing through 2023, he conspired to recruit women and minors under false pretenses, coerced them into providing commercial sex acts, and transported them across state lines in violation of the Mann Act. The government’s 45‑page complaint asserts that Combs used promises of modeling and entertainment opportunities to lure victims to his Manhattan penthouse and his Los Angeles estate, where they were then held in “implied servitude.”

Combs pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and prosecutors—led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Delgado—painted a portrait of a decades‑long pattern of exploitation. The indictment includes charges of sex trafficking, forced labor, conspiracy, and interstate transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Combs faces a maximum statutory penalty of life imprisonment if convicted on all counts.

Defense’s Request for Delay

Shortly after the indictment was unsealed, Combs’s legal team filed a motion seeking a six‑month continuance of the trial date, currently set to begin on May 5, 2025. Lead defense counsel Stuart Levine argued that the government’s voluminous discovery—tens of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings, and extensive data from digital devices—could not be adequately reviewed and tested on the court’s current timeline.

Levine also pointed to ongoing parallel investigations and civil cases involving Combs, including state‑court sexual assault suits in California and New York, contending that coordinating depositions and expert reviews across multiple jurisdictions posed “an unmanageable logistical burden.” The defense asserted that without more time to analyze forensic data and to determine potentially exculpatory Brady materials, Combs’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial would be compromised.

Judge Kaplan’s Ruling

In a terse, three‑page order issued Friday afternoon, Judge Kaplan denied the defendants’ request. “The Court has set a trial date that balances the defendant’s rights against the public’s interest in the prompt adjudication of serious federal charges,” Kaplan wrote. He noted that the discovery obligations were imposed under the standard outlined in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and that the defense had already received substantial materials, including early disclosure of witness statements and expert reports, well before the trial date.

Kaplan further observed that the “mere volume” of discovery does not alone justify a continuance. He emphasized that courts routinely oversee cases involving far larger evidence footprints, citing recent terrorism and financial fraud prosecutions in the Southern District, where similar or more significant quantities of data were digested within compressed time frames. The judge invited the defense to seek targeted relief,—such as limited postponements of individual depositions,—rather than a wholesale delay.

Reactions from Counsel

Levine told reporters he was “disappointed” outside the courthouse but “respectful of the court’s decision.” He indicated that the defense would “redouble our efforts” to process discovery and might revisit narrower scheduling requests should specific conflicts arise. “Our commitment remains to ensure Mr. Combs receives every right guaranteed by the Constitution,” Levine said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Delgado hailed the ruling as “a welcome step toward fully presenting this case to a jury.” She reiterated that the government had acted “expeditiously and in good faith” to deliver discovery and expressed confidence that the September date would allow a fair and orderly trial.

Legal‑Community Perspective

Legal experts following the case noted that Judge Kaplan’s approach reflects a broader judicial pushback against delay tactics. “In high‑profile cases, defense teams often try to play for time,” said University of Chicago law professor Carolyn Shapiro. “Courts have become less tolerant, recognizing that long continuances can effectively deny justice to victims and erode public confidence.”

Some observers cautioned, however, that real logistical challenges remain. “The quantity of digital evidence here is staggering,” said criminal defense litigator Michael Rubin. “It will test even the most sophisticated review teams.” Rubin predicted further skirmishes over specific evidentiary issues, especially any disputed “Brady” materials that the defense believes could undermine the government’s case.

Next Steps on the Pretrial Calendar

Both sides will turn to remaining pretrial motions with the trial date set. The defense has signaled its intention to file suppression motions challenging certain electronic surveillance warrants and to request a bill of particulars narrowing the charges. The government is expected to move for pretrial rulings on expert‑witness admissibility and to oppose any further continuance requests.

A final pretrial conference is scheduled when counsel must have exchanged lists of witnesses and exhibits. Jury selection will begin on May 5, with opening statements to follow on May 12, 2025.

Broader Significance

The denial of Combs’s delay motion marks the latest chapter in a case that has already captivated media and public attention. At stake is the high‑stakes career and reputation of one of hip‑hop’s biggest names and the broader message federal courts send about handling complex, document/data‑heavy prosecutions. As Combs and his legal team race the clock toward trial, the case promises to test the capacity of the criminal justice system to manage voluminous digital discovery while preserving the rights of both defendants and victims.