Not gonna be over any time soon. It seems that Garth Brooks is doing his best to get things moving in a sexual assault lawsuit that was filed against him way back in 2024. But this week an appeals court denied his latest request to speed things up in the ongoing back and forth over whether his accuser will be allowed to remain anonymous in court. If you’ll recall, the litigation actually consists of two cases: A lawsuit filed in California by a former hairdresser for the country accusing him of raping and sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions; and a lawsuit filed by Garth against the same woman a few days before she filed her complaint, attempting to block his accuser from filing her lawsuit against him, denying her allegations and accusing her of a “shakedown.” Garth had used pseudonyms for both parties when filing his case in Mississippi, identifying himself and his accuser only as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe” to prevent their identities from becoming public. But when she filed her lawsuit in California, she used Garth’s name in the complaint, which obviously made her allegations against him public – while protecting her own identity. After he was named in the court filings, Garth went back and amended his complaint in the Mississippi case to include the names of BOTH parties, arguing that his accuser had forfeited her right to remain anonymous and proceed under a pseudonym because she had included identifying information in the California case. This obviously upset the woman, who asked the judge in Mississippi to sanction Garth and to issue a ruling allowing her to remain anonymous and continue to use “Jane Roe” in court filings instead of her real name. But last September, Judge Henry Wingate denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym and also denied her request for sanctions against Garth – which would pave the way for the singer to publicly name his accuser in court documents. In his order, the judge ruled that the woman had already been publicly identified, both when Garth used her name in court filings and online through publicly available information, and that basically, the cat was already out of the bag. The court also pointed out that the woman was not in favor of sealing the record in the case until her identity became public: “Ms. Roe was more concerned with airing Mr. Doe’s identity to the public than preserving her own confidentiality.” The court also pointed out that when he filed his case in Mississippi, Garth had filed a motion asking permission for BOTH of the parties to remain anonymous – but before the judge could rule on that motion, the woman filed her California lawsuit and named Garth as the defendant, outing him publicly and rendering the issue moot. It was only then that Garth named her in the Mississippi suit, which he had not done to that point. Obviously the woman wasn’t happy with the court’s ruling, and has since filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which brings us to this week’s ruling. Garth had asked the court to expedite the appeal, citing the need to get this case moving. The country star argued that, given the age of these allegations, people’s memories would continue to fade. He also cited the death of his longtime publicist, Nancy Seltzer, who he claimed was a witness in the case, as proof that the evidence in the case beneficial to him was disappearing because the case is taking so long. As Garth pointed out in his legal filings, the case has been pending for nearly 20 months, but has been “stayed,” meaning a court ordered a halt to the proceedings, for nearly 80% of that time. But the court was unpersuaded. This week, a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Garth’s motion to expedite the appeal, meaning that it’s still going to be a while before the issue of proceeding under a pseudonym is official put to rest. Remember, this has nothing to do with the actual issues in the lawsuit: This is JUST over whether he can use her real name in court filings. And nothing else can happen in the cases until this issue is resolved. The court has ordered the woman to file her brief on the issue by May 20, which would mean that (unless any extensions are granted) Garth will have to file his brief on the issue within 30 days after that, and his accuser will then have another 21 days to file a reply brief. It will then be up to the court to decide whether to hold an oral argument on the issue, and when to issue their opinion. That means that it’s likely to be sometime in the fall before the issue is resolved and the case gets back to the lower courts to start working through the merits. Long story short: It’s going to be a while – which is exactly what his accuser wants, and what Garth is trying to avoid.The post Court Refuses To Expedite Appeal In Garth Brooks Sexual Assault Lawsuit first appeared on Whiskey Riff.