Garth Brooks wants a Mississippi judge to quickly deny his accuser’s request to seal documents revealing her real name.

Additionally, Brooks submitted a picture of her and explained why he named her in the first place.

This proceeding is tangential to his accuser’s legal claim in California. That one — filed on Oct. 3 — accuses him of sexual assault and battery.

Here is where the Mississippi proceedings stood prior to this week’s filing:

• On Sept. 13, Brooks filed a preemptive lawsuit in Mississippi (where she lives) using “John Doe” and “Jane Doe.” He was trying to proceed with any subsequent lawsuits involving the two parties under pseudonyms.
• A lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault was filed in California on Oct. 3, using “Jane Roe” as plaintiff and the star’s real name, Garth Brooks, as defendant. Among the allegations was rape in a L.A. hotel room.
• On Oct. 8, Brooks filed an amendment, using his real name and hers, asking for a judge to dismiss his original filing. Her lawyers quickly asked the court to seal those documents.

Related: Garth Brooks Sexual Assault Allegations Timeline

Brooks’ legal team’s explanation for using Jane Doe/Roe’s real name is two-pronged. InTouch got the documents which claim she was willing to use her real name if the court thought it was necessary to deny Brooks’ Sept. 13 request to move forward as John Doe.

Also, the brief says that she more or less identified herself in her California lawsuit. Facts presented are said to have made it easy for insiders to figure out who she was. A judge has not ruled on the issue.

Taste of Country will continue to not name Jane Doe/Roe at this time.

Attached to the Wednesday (Oct. 16) filing was a 2022 magazine interview Jane Doe/Roe did, which included a photo of her with Brooks.

“Her sudden about-face — to now protest Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint identifying both parties — rings hollow.”

While Brooks denies any wrongdoing and labels Jane Doe/Roe’s accusations as extortion, he has not yet filed a public response in California. It’s not clear when a ruling will be made on either case.