Day 15 of the Diddy Trial: L.A. Hotel Security Supervisor Testifies After Immunity Deal

The 15th day of the trial involving Sean “Diddy” Combs took a significant turn as the L.A. hotel security supervisor testified about an alleged cover-up following a 2016 assault. Eddy Garcia, who supervised security at the InterContinental hotel in Los Angeles at the time, offered a detailed and, at times, self-incriminating account of events after being granted immunity in exchange for honest testimony.

Immunity Deal Opens Door to Crucial Testimony

Eddy Garcia had appeared in court briefly the day before, citing his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. But with an immunity deal now possible, Garcia came back into the witness stand to share what he had. He did admit that initially, he didn’t recognize Combs or the victim, Cassie Ventura, on the attack tape of the surveillance. That changed after being informed of their identities.

Garcia testified that law enforcement was never called and Ventura did not request medical assistance. These decisions, he said, were made internally without any notification to police.

The Call from Combs and a Push for the Tape

According to Garcia, things escalated when Kristina Khorram, Combs’ then-chief of staff, contacted him seeking the hotel’s surveillance footage. Garcia claimed he advised her that he lacked the authority to release any footage without a subpoena. Shortly after, Combs himself got on the call. Garcia described feeling nervous during the conversation, which quickly focused on obtaining the footage and keeping it from leaking.

Garcia testified that Combs emphasized the video could damage his career and suggested he could “help” Garcia in return. Garcia interpreted this to mean a financial incentive. Combs, according to the testimony, was insistent that there be no other copies of the footage, highlighting the urgency and sensitivity of the request.

NDA, Cash Payments, and Video Destruction

The court was presented with a signed NDA by Garcia, which included clauses prohibiting any duplicates or stored communications related to the video. Garcia said he did not read the full agreement due to nerves, but understood the general implications. The NDA included a $1 million penalty clause for any breach.

Garcia claimed he ended up on a FaceTime call with both Combs and Ventura, during which Ventura allegedly supported the idea of the footage being destroyed. This moment was pivotal, as it suggested mutual consent to conceal evidence.

Garcia further testified that Combs returned to the hotel later with a brown paper bag and a money counter, using it to count out $100,000. The agreed price for the footage had been $50,000, but Combs said the additional money was for the two other security guards. Garcia ultimately received $30,000 and said Combs advised him against making large or noticeable purchases. Garcia spent the money on a used car and kept the transaction off the books by not depositing it into a bank.

Truth Emerges Years Later

Garcia admitted that he was not initially honest with law enforcement when questioned about the 2016 incident. It wasn’t until securing legal representation and entering discussions with the government that he offered a more complete version of events. His testimony now plays a key role in the prosecution’s strategy to establish a pattern of obstruction and concealment.

Defense attorney Brian Steel highlighted a line in the NDA that Garcia was not restricted from testifying in legal proceedings. The defense appeared to use this to counter claims of obstruction, but prosecutors responded by referencing a clause requiring written notice before disclosure, potentially giving Combs’ company time to intervene.

Financial Trail Under Review – CFO of Combs Enterprises Testifies

The government also called Derek Ferguson, the former CFO of Combs Enterprises, to the witness stand. Ferguson provided insight into the financial structure of Combs’ businesses and confirmed Combs’ access and control over various financial instruments and accounts.

While on the stand, Ferguson verified a $20,000 wire transfer from Ventura’s father to Combs dated December 23, 2011. Prosecutors linked this payment to testimony from Ventura’s mother, who said Combs demanded the money to prevent him from releasing explicit videos after learning about Ventura’s relationship with Kid Cudi. She also told the court that the money was returned days later. In addition, two other $20,000 transfers from that same month were shown, including one to Ventura on December 14 and another to an unidentified entity on December 27.

Though Ferguson’s testimony was largely procedural, it could prove crucial in establishing the financial framework behind alleged hush-money payments or efforts to suppress evidence.

Under cross-examination, defense attorney Marc Agnifilo asked Ferguson a series of questions aimed at distancing Combs from criminal conduct. Ferguson testified that he had not witnessed Combs engage in violence, coercion, or illegal behavior during his tenure. He also emphasized that business and personal expenses were managed separately, and that he personally took steps to ensure financial propriety. Ferguson also noted he worked from the company’s New York office and was not present in Combs’ private residences.

“Mia” Identity Revealed

Separately, prosecutors voiced concerns after the real name and identity of “Mia,” a key prosecution witness, were published by a media outlet. The government is now seeking to ban the outlet from attending further proceedings. Judge Subramanian has asked prosecutors to draft a potential court order for review.

Meanwhile, prosecutors also raised concerns over the anonymity of another accuser, “Jane,” and requested that her face not be displayed in overflow viewing rooms. This request follows the recent public outing of “Mia,” and aims to prevent a repeat situation. Jane is expected to testify later this week.

Conclusion

Day 15 of the trial shed light on a troubling web of power, silence, and attempted cover-ups. Garcia’s testimony adds weight to the prosecution’s narrative that Combs not only committed acts of violence, but he also engaged in deliberate efforts to suppress evidence of it, going so far as to exchange large sums of cash and enforce NDAs. With Garcia’s immunity-secured statements now on record, the case continues to build around the idea of a potential criminal enterprise, and the stakes have never been higher.

With Jane expected to take the stand soon and further financial documentation under review, the courtroom remains focused on a pattern of behavior prosecutors argue is more than just isolated misconduct. And after the LA hotel security supervisor testifies under oath, the legal and reputational consequences for Combs continue to mount.