The legal storm surrounding All-Pro wide receiver Stefon Diggs has taken a sharp turn toward the evidence phase. On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, legal representatives for Christopher Blake Griffith—the social media influencer who accused Diggs of sexual assault filed a motion to compel the NFL star to produce critical evidence, including security footage from his home and personal financial records. The Stefon Diggs security footage request legal update 2026 marks a significant escalation in a case that has seen both men trade lawsuits over the past year.
The latest court filings indicate that Griffith’s team is tired of what they describe as “stonewalling” from Diggs’ legal camp. Since Diggs initiated a defamation lawsuit against Griffith in November 2025, the discovery process—the phase where both sides must share evidence—has reportedly stalled.
“Stefon Diggs does not get to sue and hide,” Griffith’s attorney stated in the filing. The motion specifically requests:
• Security Footage: Footage from the night of the alleged May 2023 encounter at Diggs’ Maryland home. Griffith claims the video will corroborate his account of being drugged and assaulted.
• Financial Records: Evidence of the “reputational and financial harm” Diggs claims to have suffered as a result of the allegations. Griffith argues that since Diggs is suing for millions in damages, he must prove those losses exist.
This legal development comes at a precarious time for the 32-year-old receiver. Following the New England Patriots’ loss in Super Bowl LX, the team officially released Diggs in March 2026. He currently remains a free agent, with league insiders suggesting that his mounting legal troubles—which include separate criminal charges in Massachusetts—have chilled interest from other franchises.
In addition to the civil suit with Griffith, Diggs is scheduled for a May 4 trial in Dedham District Court regarding felony strangulation and misdemeanor assault charges involving his former personal chef, Mila Adams. Diggs has pleaded not guilty in both the criminal and civil matters, with his attorneys maintaining that the accusations are “unsubstantiated and motivated by financial disputes.”
A judge has yet to rule on the motion to compel the security footage and financial documents. If granted, the footage from that May evening could serve as the “smoking gun” for either side, potentially clearing Diggs’ name or providing the foundation for Griffith’s countersuit. For now, the “Truth” remains locked behind the discovery process as a July 2026 pretrial hearing looms.
