The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
No Pseudonymity for Plaintiff Professor Who Sued Colleague and University Alleging Rape
From Doe v. St Lawrence Univ., decided earlier this month by Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart (N.D.N.Y.), and just appealed to the District Judge:
In 2022, both Plaintiff and Defendant Moralez were employed as professors at SLU. Plaintiff alleges that on April 12, 2022, she attended an off-campus meeting at Moralez's home to "talk about future courses to be taught by [Plaintiff] in sociology that would be used to also satisfy requisites for a major or minor in Public Health." That night, Plaintiff alleges that Moralez drugged and brutally raped her…. It is unclear whether SLU fired Moralez, but Moralez claims that "[s]ince leaving SLU [he has] been unable to secure a teaching position at any level."
Courts are split on whether plaintiffs alleging rape should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously (see Appendices 2a & 2b of The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation), and the Magistrate Judge acknowledged that "[a]llegations of sexual assault are 'paradigmatic example[s]' of highly sensitive and personal claims and thus favor a plaintiff's use of a pseudonym." But he noted that "allegations of sexual assault, by themselves, are not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym," and concluded that pseudonymity shouldn't be allowed here:
Here, Plaintiff has not identified any particularized harm that would result from publicly disclosing her identity. She claims generally and without medical corroboration that her "experiences as described in the Complaint are deeply traumatic, and having those experiences played out in a public forum could spark more trauma for Plaintiff." Plaintiff also states that she "has engaged in ongoing extensive mental health treatment. If she is forced to reveal her identity to the public, she would experience significant harm." This conclusory statement, without any corroborating medical evidence, does not provide any basis for allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously in this action.
Likewise, [another] factor, which "inquires as to the status of a plaintiff's confidentiality thus far in the litigation," does not support Plaintiff's request for anonymity. This factor correlates with [risk of harm] because "[i]f a plaintiff's confidentiality has not been maintained throughout the proceedings, there is less of a risk of harm should the plaintiff not be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym." Some courts have even "indicated that if the identity of a plaintiff was previously disclosed in judicial or administrative proceedings, then the request to proceed anonymously should be denied."
Here, Plaintiff … claims that she will be harmed if the public is made aware of her identity, "without citing any evidence to support that fear of harm from the general public." But Plaintiff's "prior actions undercut h[er] position." The record clearly shows that Plaintiff previously posted about the subject assault on Facebook twice, privately messaged an individual student about it, and passed out flyers about the assault on SLU's campus. There is "no suggestion … that any of those disclosures" caused Plaintiff additional trauma "or, if they did not, why further disclosure would yield a different outcome." Nor does Plaintiff allege that she "received assurances of confidentiality from any" of the people she disclosed information to….
And the court also noted the unfairness of allowing plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously in a lawsuit that impugns a private individual's reputation:
Defendant Moralez, whose alleged actions are the subject of this case, is clearly a private party. Given Plaintiff's extremely serious allegations, Defendant Moralez has a "substantial interest in maintaining [his] good name and reputation." …
"… [T]he public's interest in protecting sexual assault victims is not the only interest implicated here. There is also a public interest in the accused being able to publicly confront an accuser, a right that would be undermined by Plaintiff's anonymity." …
Courts have identified prejudice against a defendant when a defendant is "required to defend itself publicly before a jury while plaintiff … make[s] her accusations from behind a cloak of anonymity." Moreover, where, as here, the allegations are of a highly sensitive and personal nature, the potential for harm flows not only to Plaintiff but to Defendant Moralez as well. See Anonymous v. Simon (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Plaintiff's allegations and public comments embarrass Defendant and place him under the same stigma that concerns Plaintiff.")….
Defendant Moralez asserts that he has already suffered grave reputational damage because of this lawsuit and will continue to be prejudiced should Plaintiff be permitted to proceed anonymously. He also maintains that keeping Plaintiff's name confidential "could impede discovery by preventing potential witnesses from coming forward." The Court agrees.
Plaintiff, who has "levie[d] serious allegations[,] 'put [her] credibility in issue' " when she commenced this action. Accordingly, allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously would put Defendants at a severe disadvantage at all stages of litigation. Certainly, "Plaintiff's anonymity would make it more difficult to obtain witnesses and witness testimony, Defendants [c]ould have less leverage in settlement negotiations, and Defendants would not be able to fully and adequately cross-examine the Plaintiff." …
Finally, the court noted that, as in other cases that turn primarily on factual disputes rather than purely legal questions, "The public also has a strong interest in knowing the underlying facts of a litigation, including the identities of litigants."
Andrew Miltenberg (Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP) represents Moralez.
