Doe v. DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC

Background

Jane Doe sued DNA Diagnostics Center LLC and Winn Health Labs LLC, asserting negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to her allegations, a prenatal paternity test reported with 99.99% certainty that man “A,” rather than her then-fiancé, was the father of her baby. She alleges that she ended the pregnancy approximately one week after receiving the result. About four months later, DNA Diagnostics Center told her that an information-technology error had caused the inaccurate result and that man “A” had a 0.0% chance of being the father.

Doe asked to litigate under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” The court addressed that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which generally requires parties to be identified in the complaint’s title. The court’s opinion concerned pseudonym use only; it did not decide the merits of Doe’s negligence claims.

Legal Standard

The court explained that parties ordinarily must litigate under their real names, but a plaintiff may overcome that presumption by showing that the interest in anonymity outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. The court applied the Second Circuit’s ten-factor balancing approach, considering the sensitivity of the subject matter, risks of physical or mental harm, vulnerability, whether the defendants are private parties or the government, possible prejudice, prior confidentiality, public interest, and alternative ways to protect the plaintiff’s identity.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the highly personal nature of abortion and pregnancy-related events favored anonymity. It also found that Doe provided specific evidence of potential mental and physical harm, including online comments calling her a “baby killer” and threatening that she would “get” what was coming to her. The court concluded that these circumstances went beyond ordinary embarrassment.

Two factors weighed against anonymity: Doe was not shown to be particularly vulnerable based on age or another identified characteristic, and she was suing private companies rather than challenging government action. The court nevertheless found that any prejudice to the defendants was minimal because Doe’s counsel had confidentially disclosed her name to them and the record did not show that she was withholding discoverable information.

The court also found that Doe had taken adequate measures to preserve confidentiality despite one erroneous public disclosure of her name. She had spoken with the press only under conditions of anonymity, and her counsel was working to correct the public filing. The court found no adequate alternative mechanism that would address her concerns without allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym. The public-interest factors did not show an unusual need to know her identity.

Disposition

The court granted Doe’s application to proceed pseudonymously. The order did not rule on whether DNA Diagnostics Center LLC or Winn Health Labs LLC were negligent, or whether Doe could recover damages.