Doe v. City Of Concord

Background

Jane Doe asked for permission to continue litigating this case under a pseudonym, meaning a name other than her true name. The court had previously allowed her to use a pseudonym temporarily. The defendants opposed making that arrangement permanent.

Doe argued that publicly revealing her identity could expose her to retaliation and aggravate the original injury she suffered. She also cited the stigma that can attach to victims of sexual assault. Doe maintained that the defendants would not be prejudiced because they already knew her identity.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the test from Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. It found that Doe had credibly alleged a risk of retaliation and had shown that her need for anonymity outweighed both potential prejudice to the defendants and the public’s interest in knowing her identity.

The defendants argued that Doe’s other pseudonymous lawsuits justified revealing her name. The court acknowledged that Doe had filed other actions pseudonymously but found that this fact alone was not enough to defeat her request. The court also rejected the defendants’ suggestion that the public had an obvious interest in knowing about Doe’s alleged pattern of bringing lawsuits concerning responses to sexual-assault reports.

Ruling

Judge Donato granted Doe’s request for pseudonymity. Doe must continue styling her filings as “Jane Doe.” Her identity will not be disclosed to the general public, and the defendants and their attorneys may not disclose it to another person or entity except as necessary to defend against the action.

The measures were ordered without prejudice to a future request to disclose Doe’s true name or to a later court decision that the circumstances no longer justify anonymity. The order addressed only Doe’s identity and did not decide the underlying claims.