Derrick Rose speaks during a news conference at Madison Square Garden, Friday, June 24, 2016, in New York. CREDIT: MARY ALTAFFER, AP

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled that Derrick Rose’s alleged rape victim will not be permitted to use a pseudonym during the civil trial, which begins on October 4th.

While this ruling was clearly a win for Rose, the official order, which was released on Thursday, includes some stern warnings for the NBA star and his legal team.

Among those was a threat of sanctions if “Defendant Rose continues to utilize language that shames and blames the victims of rape either in his motion practice or before the jury.”

While the judge ultimately ordered that a “Jane Doe” pseudonym was not permitted in trial because it might “unduly prejudice” Rose, he did seem to have a good grasp of what is at stake for Doe with the decision.

“Plaintiff can reasonably fear that losing her anonymity will subject her to close scrutiny by media and the public.”

“Defendant Rose is an exceedingly famous athlete, and thus media attention will presumably increase as the trial date approaches,” he wrote. “Plaintiff can reasonably fear that losing her anonymity will subject her to close scrutiny by media and the public. As an alleged rape victim, Plaintiff may be particularly vulnerable to such scrutiny.”

Because of that, the judge pointedly warned Rose and his team against the slut-shaming, victim-blaming rhetoric that has been so prevalent in the court filings in this case.

The judge specifically called out Rose for saying that Doe “is not a minor who is a true victim of rape or assault”:

“Defendant Rose’s argument that Plaintiff “is not a minor who is a true victim of rape or assault” (Mot. at 10) is as unpersuasive as it is distasteful. Whether Plaintiff is truly a victim of rape is for the jury to decide, not this Court. Moreover, Plaintiff’s age has little to do with whether she was truly raped, or whether she would be harmed by the harassment and publicity that is likely to result from increased public scrutiny.

Additionally, the judge ordered Rose’s team to stop implying that Doe’s sexual history has any relationship to whether or not she consented to group sex with Rose and his friends on the night in question (emphasis ours).

Finally, the Court notes that it is extremely displeased by Defendant Rose’s renewed implication that evidence Plaintiff was “sexually adventurous with [Defendant] Rose” and drank alcohol with Defendant Rose on the night in question in any way affects whether Plaintiff consented to group sex with Defendants Rose, Allen,and Hampton later that night. (See Mot. at 3). The Court previously made clear to Defendant Rose that such rhetoric is unworthy of this Court. (June Order at 4). That the Court now grants Defendant Rose’s motion to preclude Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym at trial is in no way an invitation to continue his attempts to prejudice Plaintiff in this way.

From the moment the civil suit was filed last August, Rose and his legal team have been trying to shame the alleged victim into silence — a very common tactic in rape cases, especially high-profile ones.

So, while the alleged victim’s loss of the protection of the pseudonym is a blow for the plaintiff, particularly considering how crucial anonymity is to her, the fact that the judge is taking a strong stance against the defense’s primary tactic throughout the case is significant.