The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
N.Y. Times on Pseudonymity in the Sean "Diddy" Combs Cases
From an article today by Julia Jacobs:
Sexual assault accusers have long sought anonymity in the courts and in the media. The flood of complaints during the #MeToo movement ushered in a much broader societal understanding of their fears of retribution and social stigmatization, and protocols in the American media that withhold accusers' names became even more entrenched ….
Securing anonymity in civil court can be much more challenging.
So far, at least two judges in Federal District Court in Manhattan have rejected requests from plaintiffs to remain anonymous in lawsuits against Mr. Combs, who has denied sexually abusing anyone….
Though U.S. civil courts are more likely to grant anonymity in sexual assault cases than other litigation — especially when the accusations involve minors — … experts said judges still often decide in favor of a defendant's argument for a fair and open trial.
In recent years, courts have rejected bids to proceed anonymously in sexual assault lawsuits against Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, citing the "constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." …
Still, in some settings, courts have taken into account the mental anguish plaintiffs say they will experience if their names are made public — especially in an era of intense exposure on the internet — and consider the argument that declining to protect an accuser's identity could deter others from reporting sexual abuse.
The article well captures the unpredictability of the law of pseudonymous litigation, even when it comes to a pretty narrowly defined subset, such as cases alleging sexual assault: "Legal scholars say there have been broad inconsistencies in how civil courts across the country handle the issue of anonymous plaintiffs, making outcomes largely dependent on the leanings of individual judges." As it happens, the Southern District of New York, where the Combs lawsuits have been filed, tends to be especially anti-pseudonymity, though there too there is a mix of different results in similar cases.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is it justice when a P Diddy sexual assault victim, a minor at the time of the act(s), declines to move forward with a lawsuit because of shame, humiliation and societal ostracism arising from bringing that case forward?
Is there any case that touches directly on that point: allowing a sexual assault victim who was a minor to move forward pseudonymously.
I am hard pressed to say justice was done in that instance (not allowing a plaintiff who was a minor at the time of the act to move forward pseudonymously. Where is the legal problem in allowing pseudonymity for these specific cases.
Is the issue that the legal age of consent (for marriage, as an example) is less than that of a legal adult?
You're begging the question.
I don't think that this is an easy issue.
First, I think that civil court proceedings should be public, absent a very high showing. In all but the most extreme circumstances, no person who uses the court system should be allowed to proceed anonymously (pseudonymously).
I do think that is a foundational aspect of our courts. I am somewhat sympathetic to those who say that, because of the internet, there is much easier and widespread dissemination of court documents- you don't actually have to get the court files any more. But while that is an interesting argument, I think that the strong presumption that court services are public goods, and we do not want star chambers, overcomes the change in technology.
Second, I am going to voice an unpopular thought I've been having. I think sexual assault and sexual predators are the worst (obvious, yet necessary, disclaimer). I am glad that Diddy is in jail given the allegations that seem quit believable. I truly understand that there are those who might be deterred in going to court knowing that their names will be public. ...but, I also think that the presumption is for public access. And ... I have another fear. I do think that serial predators like Diddy have hurt a lot of people. But I also think that it is possible that there is some deranged person out there who is looking to cash in on what will be an easy payday, given the number of people coming forward.
I've unfortunately encountered other instances where people know that there is a lawsuit with other people involved, and they join even though they weren't involved or harmed, looking for a payout. Because people suck.
I agree. This is not an easy issue.
I will add this-
I think I get EV's (scholarly) obsession with the issue. Because it's an important issue, and it really does seem ad hoc.
It feels like there are some judges that pretty much won't allow it. And there are some that will pretty much rubber stamp it (unless someone challenges it). And some that look at each on a case-by-case basis.
That's no way to determine how to proceed! Clarity would be nice.
(I should add that part of my distaste for anonymity and sealed records is because when I was younger, there was an issue with certain state court judges who would seal the litigation files - civil, divorce, whatever - of people that asked. And the people that asked were always the people in the know, who were, of course, the movers and shakers. But not for any actual reason- they just wanted it all vanished. Anyway, IIRC there was a rule promulgated that required a real showing moving forward to seal to avoid those shenanigans.)