Breaking News Emails
The woman at the center of a since-retracted Rolling Stone article about an alleged sexual assault at the University of Virginia will have to answer questions in a lawsuit over the piece, a judge has ruled.
The judge on Monday denied an attempt to prevent "Jackie," the alleged victim profiled in the article, from being deposed in a civil suit brought by a university administrator.
Jackie — a pseudonym used to protect the victim — to is scheduled to be questioned on Thursday.
The deposition was sought by attorneys representing University of Virginia Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo, who was mentioned in the debunked article. Eramo is suing Rolling Stone and its parent company for $7.8 million.
Breaking News Emails
The November 2014 article, titled "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA," detailed a gang rape that supposedly occurred during a frat party, and the piece sparked nationwide outrage.
But the article was later retracted after doubts were raised about the sexual assault claim, and after an independent report found the piece violated "basic, even routine journalistic practice."
Lawyers representing Jackie argued that a deposition "will have shattering and potentially irreparable consequences" on the woman and her mental health, according to court documents.
Jackie was not named in Eramo’s lawsuit, which alleges defamation.
U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad allowed the questions posed to Jackie to be limited in scope, and ordered any transcripts or recordings to be confidential, according to the order.
An attorney representing Jackie told NBC News, "We have no comment at this time."
A lawyer for Rolling Stone did not return an email for comment. In court papers the magazine did not oppose the deposition of Jackie.
The fraternity named in the Rolling Stone article has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone and the article’s author.
Three former fraternity members have also sued the magazine, arguing that even though they were not named in the article, they were falsely identified as attackers after it was published.