No Pseudonymity for Man Challenging NFL's Alleged Discrimination Against Black Players and Coaching Candidates

From Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) yesterday in Doe v. NFL:

Plaintiff John Doe says that he is a Black man who has looked on with disgust, humiliation, and anxiety as the National Football League has discriminated against Black quarterbacks and coaching candidates and meted out harsher discipline to Black players.

He has finally had enough. So he is suing the league for violating the DC Human Rights Act, the DC Consumer Protection Act, DC's law barring businesses from racial discrimination, Title VII, and the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He wants declaratory and injunctive relief, plus $100 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages. And he now moves to sue under a pseudonym. The Court will deny the Motion….

Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); [Local Civil Rules] 5.1(c)(1), 11.1. That requirement reflects the "presumption in favor of disclosure [of litigants' identities], which stems from the 'general public interest in the openness of governmental processes,' and, more specifically, from the tradition of open judicial proceedings." … Plaintiff has not shown that his privacy interests outweigh the public's presumptive and substantial interest in learning his identity.

Start with whether this case concerns "a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature." Plaintiff says that it does because allegations of racial discrimination are necessarily sensitive and personal. But he does not allege that the NFL discriminated against him. Instead, his Complaint collects examples of alleged discrimination against other people: NFL players and coaches. Those incidents — from the Colts starting White quarterback Daniel Jones over Black backup Anthony Richardson to the Commanders hiring White head-coaching candidate Dan Quinn over Black candidate Eric Bienemy — are all matters of public record, announced at press conferences and blasted out through ESPN alerts. They may be controversial. They are not sensitive and personal.

Next, "whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm." Even when a plaintiff fears retaliation, this factor weighs against pseudonymity if those fears are speculative and unsubstantiated. Such is the case here. Plaintiff claims that the NFL commands enough money, power, and attention to hurt him, but he gives no reason to think that it would. Indeed, Plaintiff does not seem to be an NFL player, coach, or employee, so it is not clear how the league could retaliate against him even if it wanted to.

Instead, he claims that fellow Black men Colin Kaepernick and Deshaun Watson were threatened when they ran afoul of the NFL. Whether Plaintiff would attract the same public ire as those household names is sheer conjecture. His bare assertions that racial tensions show that any Black man who sues the NFL would face threats of violence are similarly speculative.

Turning to the ages of the people with relevant privacy interests, Plaintiff has three 17- year-old sons who are all striving for college football scholarships. Identifying Plaintiff might identify them, so this … favors pseudonymity … [but does] not tip the balance….