No Closed Trial, Pseudonymity at Trial, or Audio-Only Testimony for Billion-Dollar Maine Lottery Winner

"However legitimate [plaintiff's] concerns, a party's wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access."

Some short excerpts from yesterday's long decision by Judge John Woodcock (D. Me.) in Doe v. Smith:

On November 14, 2023, John Doe, a pseudonym for the father of a minor daughter, filed a lawsuit against Sara Smith, a pseudonym for the mother of the same minor, seeking an injunction and other relief against Ms. Smith for disclosure of information subject to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between them. Specifically, Mr. Doe, a winner of the Maine State Lottery, claimed that Ms. Smith violated the NDA by informing third parties about his winnings….

Mr. Doe notes the Court "hit the nail on the head" when it observed in a January 10, 2025 status conference that he is faced with a "Catch-22" if this case were to proceed to a public trial: "even if Plaintiff were to win on his claims, his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the public and the media; he would effectively lose the privacy war and subject himself and his minor daughter to the irreparable harm he brought suit to avoid."

He thus files this motion for a closed trial and informs the Court of his intent to seek interlocutory appeal of the Court's ruling if necessary. Mr. Doe specifically requests that any trial in this matter be closed in its entirety to the public and media, or alternatively that all testimony of the parties and their family members to be submitted to the jury be taken by telephone or audio-only Zoom along with "appropriate safeguards, including, but not limited to, the partial closure of any trial to the public and media where appropriate, in order to ensure that the identities and other personal identifying information of the Parties and their family members remain anonymous." …

The court said no to the closed trial request:

From the Court's perspective, Mr. Doe's request that the trial itself be closed to the public is a nonstarter. It runs hard against historic concepts of what the courts are and what they are not in this country. A publicly filed court case is no longer a private matter. In bringing this case, Mr. Doe turned to a forum established by the United States Constitution, funded by American taxpayers, comprising a branch of the federal government, whose procedures must be open and whose rulings must be a matter of public record….

By the Court's reckoning, one of Mr. Doe's main points is that because he is now wealthy, the consequences of his filing this lawsuit are different for him as opposed to other less financially fortunate individuals. Mot. for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order ("There are unique risks inherent to being an ultra-high-net-worth individual, especially where, as here, the individual's increase in wealth is swift and dramatic"). He fears his new-found wealth will make him the target of an inquisitive and occasionally malevolent people. See id. ("Plaintiff has had to hire a highly respected security firm and strictly adhere to a safety program that requires property security, surveillance, and ongoing threat assessments to ensure his and his minor daughter's safety and privacy").

However legitimate his concerns, a party's wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access. Indeed, as he notes in his motion for leave to proceed under pseudonym, Mr. Doe's new-found wealth allows him to afford levels of security and isolation not generally available to the general public, thus mitigating the impact of the public revelation of his new financial status.

Upon entering a judgeship, Congress requires each federal judge to take an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." 28 U.S.C. § 453. "Every litigant is entitled to have his case heard by a judge mindful of this oath." Laird v. Tatum (1972). This Court cannot reconcile its sworn oath with Mr. Doe's demand that his trial be closed to the public because he is rich….

The court likewise said no to the request for pseudonymity at trial:

Mr. Doe [has] focused on "the unique risks inherent to being an ultra-high-net-worth individual, especially where, as here, the individual's increase in wealth is swift and drastic." Mr. Doe lists the following risks: (1) kidnap for ransom, (2) stalking and harassment, (3) unwanted attention to his daughter, (4) increased attention to his other family members, (5) cybersecurity vulnerabilities, (6) impersonation and financial fraud, (7) media attention, (8) extortion, (9) solicitation for financial support, and (10) disruptions and restricted movement in daily life….

[But] without diminishing the Plaintiff's proffered security concerns for himself and the parties' minor daughter, the Court cannot conclude that these fears of harm outweigh the public's robust interest in open courts. While the presumption of public access is not absolute, it is paramount and an essential component of our legal system, so "important because it 'allows the citizenry to monitor the functioning of our courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.'"

And the court said no to the request for audio-only testimony at trial from the parties and key witnesses:

Mr. Doe not only proposes that his identity still be kept secret, but also that the identity of the other critical witnesses be kept secret as well. In fact, he requests not only that the witnesses' names and identities be secret, but that a jury be restricted from viewing them all, including their facial expressions, body movements, and all other non-verbal responses and expressions.

Moreover, as the Court understands it, under Mr. Doe's proposal, questions would not be allowed if they could reveal the witness's identity. Therefore, questions about the witness's age, education, employment, where they grew up, current residence, marital status, children, life experiences, and other similar matters that jurors typically rely upon in assessing a witness's credibility would be off-limits, and the information would be unavailable to the jury. Thus, a jury would hear the testimony by telephone or audio-only Zoom of disembodied voices from anonymous witnesses, including the parties, whose credibility would be critical to its deliberations. In the Court's view, Mr. Doe's proposal does not comport with any trial that the Court is familiar with or that is legally permitted in this country for the issuance of a fair and informed verdict….

UCLA School of Law student Theodora Ciobanu and I, together with our local counsel Sigmund Schutz and Alexandra Harriman (Preti Flaherty, LP), argued for this result on behalf of the Maine Trust for Local News. (The Maine Trust hadn't objected to pseudonymity before trial, but objected to pseudonymity being extended to trial.)