Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The court had preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Jodi Harpstead, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. People who objected to the settlement asked to proceed using pseudonyms, meaning names that do not reveal their identities publicly. They asked to disclose their full names and addresses only to the court, or alternatively to the court and the parties’ outside counsel.

The objectors said they feared retaliation and believed pseudonyms were necessary for their safety. The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed that the objectors could protect their identities from public disclosure, but opposed concealing their identities from the parties and the parties’ counsel. The settlement notice required each objection to include the objector’s full legal name and address.

The court also received reports that numerous people said they were class members but had not received notice of the settlement. The court therefore addressed both the objectors’ anonymity request and questions about the Department of Human Services’ notice process.

Reasoning

The court explained that there is a strong presumption against allowing parties to use pseudonyms. It considered the objectors’ vulnerability and reports of past retaliation, the public’s strong interest in seeing the objections, and the public’s weaker interest in knowing the objectors’ identities. The court concluded that pseudonyms would allow the objectors to express their concerns publicly while protecting them from public identification.

The court reached a different conclusion about concealing the identities from the parties and their counsel. The parties needed to know who the objectors were to determine whether they were class members and whether they had received proper settlement notice. The court therefore found that allowing complete anonymity at this stage would prejudice the parties.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part the objectors’ request to proceed with pseudonyms. The objectors may publicly proceed under pseudonyms. The plaintiffs, the defendant, and the objectors were ordered to meet and confer within seven days about a proposed protective order. The order must require disclosure of the objectors’ identities to the court, the plaintiffs, the defendant’s outside counsel, specific in-house counsel for the defendant, and necessary Department of Human Services employees, while preventing disclosure to others. The parties could agree to limit disclosure further.

Within ten days, the plaintiffs, defendant, and objectors were ordered to file a proposed protective order and explain any areas where they disagreed. Within two days after the court entered a protective order, the objectors were ordered to file their identities under seal, meaning in a nonpublic court filing.

The court separately ordered the defendant, within seven days, to file a list of people to whom the Department of Human Services sent settlement notice and answer whether legal guardians received notices, whether accommodations were made to help class members understand the notice, and when the notices were sent. Judge Donovan W. Frank signed the order.