Doe v. Kimmel
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-03201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe v. Kimmel, Judge Furman permanently granted Doe’s unopposed request to use a pseudonym because anonymity outweighed disclosure and prejudice.
Jane Doe may proceed in the case under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” The defendants and the public will not receive the plaintiff’s identity through the public case caption.
What happened
In Doe v. Kimmel, Jane Doe asked to proceed under a pseudonym. The court had temporarily allowed that request while giving the defendants an opportunity to oppose it.
All defendants appeared, but none opposed the request by the deadline. The court said the case involved highly sensitive and personal matters, and that Doe was a minor at the time of the alleged attack. It also said alleged victims of sexual assault have a strong interest in anonymity.
Judge Furman permanently granted the motion as unopposed. The court concluded that Doe’s interest in keeping her identity private strongly outweighed the defendants’ possible prejudice and the public’s general interest in knowing the identities of people seeking relief in court.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Kimmel · No. 1:24-cv-03201
- Jesse Furman
- June 26, 2024
Background
Jane Doe moved to proceed under a pseudonym, “Jane Doe.” On April 30, 2024, the court temporarily granted the request but reserved a final decision. The court directed that any opposition be filed within two weeks after the defendants appeared.
All defendants had appeared by June 11, 2024. No defendant filed an opposition by the deadline.
Court’s reasoning
The court permanently granted the motion as unopposed and substantially for the reasons in Doe’s supporting memorandum. It applied the balancing approach used when deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym: the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity is weighed against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants.
The court found that the case involved a “highly sensitive and [] personal” subject. It stated that courts commonly recognize a strong interest in anonymity for alleged victims of rape and sexual assault, and that this interest is stronger when the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the alleged attack. The court also recognized that the public has a particularized interest in protecting the identities of alleged sexual-assault victims to encourage victims to report such crimes.
Disposition
Judge Furman concluded that Doe’s interest in anonymity strongly outweighed potential prejudice to the defendants and the countervailing public interest in disclosure. The court therefore permanently granted Doe’s motion to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.