Doe 1 v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Background

The plaintiffs disputed whether they could proceed anonymously in this litigation. The court had previously allowed Does 1–3, who were freshmen at USF in 2020, to proceed anonymously. Does 4–12, who had attended USF before 2020, then requested the same treatment. The opinion states that Anthony N. Giarratano and Troy Nakamura coached Does 4–12 at USF between 1999 and 2018.

The plaintiffs said their allegations concerned inappropriate sexual conduct, including coaches’ exposing themselves and asking about the plaintiffs’ sex lives and genitalia. They cited possible humiliation, unwanted media attention, and retaliation. They did not seek to prevent the defendants from learning their identities, but they asked that those identities remain strictly confidential.

Several defendants initially agreed that Does 4–12 could proceed anonymously. Giarratano and Nakamura later withdrew their agreement after the plaintiffs requested that Nakamura’s counsel not disclose the Doe plaintiffs’ identities while investigating the claims. USF, Giarratano, and Nakamura opposed anonymity. USF also moved to strike a notice in which the plaintiffs sought an opportunity to respond to the opposition through a hearing or reply brief.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that parties ordinarily must use their real names. When a plaintiff seeks anonymity, the court balances that presumption against the severity of the threatened harm, the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s fears, and the plaintiff’s vulnerability to retaliation.

The court held that the allegations involved sensitive topics concerning sexuality and fell within the types of allegations that can justify anonymity. It said the plaintiffs did not have to show physical sexual assault. The court also found that the nature of the allegations and the interest that college athletics can generate in communities and on college campuses created an apparent risk of community retaliation. It added that proving retaliation was not necessary because the plaintiffs’ privacy interests independently supported anonymity.

The court addressed the defendants’ discovery concerns separately from the public use of pseudonyms. The plaintiffs would have to disclose their identities to defense counsel after a protective order was established. The court said that, when defendants know the plaintiffs’ identities, using pseudonyms in court filings need not prevent either side from developing its case. The court said the specific confidentiality terms would need to be resolved through a protective order.

The court also rejected the argument that public comments by the plaintiffs’ counsel undermined the request for anonymity. The opinion states that the comments did not reveal the plaintiffs’ identities and could remain subject to other limitations.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously. It ordered that, after a protective order was established either by stipulation or by court order following a motion, the plaintiffs must provide their identities to the defendants’ counsel.

Judge Laurel Beeler also granted the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ notice because Local Rule 7-11, which governs motions for administrative relief, does not provide for a reply brief in support of such a motion.