Sean Combs demands that Warner Bros turn over raw footage from the 'Fall of Diddy' documentary series

• Diddy and Warner Bros are fighting over his demand for outtakes from the "Fall of Diddy" docuseries.
• Diddy wants all unaired footage and paperwork concerning two accusers from the series.
• The studio says the subpoena is too broad and violates long-standing legal protections for reporters.

With jury selection three weeks away in his Manhattan sex-trafficking trial, Sean Combs is fighting with Warner Bros over his demand for unaired footage from the documentary series "The Fall of Diddy."

Lawyers for Combs had subpoenaed Warner Bros in March asking for "all recordings, including raw and unedited footage" from interviews with two accusers who appeared in the series, which aired in January on the studio's subsidiary, Max.

Combs' subpoena also demands any notes or journals the accusers gave the documentary's producers, and any records of financial payments the producers made to the accusers in connection with their involvement in the project.

Warner Bros is fighting the subpoena. On Tuesday, the studio's lawyers asked the federal judge overseeing the sex-trafficking case to quash. The lawyers' nine-page court filing cites "reporter's privilege" and calls Combs' effort an overly broad "fishing expedition."

"Mr. Combs seeks outtakes from interviews with two persons featured in the docuseries," studio attorney Thomas B. Sullivan wrote to US District Judge Arun Subramanian.

"The interview outtakes it seeks are protected by the reporter's privilege that applies to unpublished newsgathering materials," the studio's lawyer wrote.

Journalists have long been protected from being compelled to reveal unpublished notes and confidential sources under an array of long-standing federal and state court decisions recognizing the public's interest in a free press.

"Mr. Combs has not met, and cannot meet, his burden to overcome that privilege," the studio lawyer wrote.

The Warner Bros filing does not name the two accusers whose notes and outtakes are being sought by Combs. Instead, they are described as Individual A and Individual B.

"Individual A is Mr. Combs' former personal chef," the studio wrote. "She is featured in the docuseries speaking about how Mr. Combs treated her when she was employed by him, as well as about various rumors she heard about his behavior during her time in his orbit."

The studio refers to Individual B as "a former romantic partner of Mr. Combs. She is featured in the docuseries discussing the origins and path of her relationship with him, including one alleged incident of sexual assault."

Combs may be seeking the outtakes and other records in hopes of finding something to use against the two accusers should they testify against him at trial, the Warner Bros lawyer wrote.

However, "recordings of interviews with Individual A and Individual B would be hearsay, and therefore, not directly admissible," the lawyer wrote.

Also, "Courts have consistently held that broad subpoenas for journalistic outtakes based on the hope that the unpublished material might prove relevant in some way are insufficient to overcome the reporter's privilege," the lawyer wrote.

Combs' subpoena had given Warner Bros a Tuesday deadline for turning over the outtakes and other records.

Combs' attorneys have yet to publicly reply to the studio's efforts to quash his subpoena. The judge has given them until Thursday to do so.

Lawyers and media representatives for Combs did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the studio's efforts.