Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Donovan Frank
- 0:16-cv-02623
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Murphy v. Harpstead: Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part objectors’ request to use pseudonyms and ordered limited identity disclosure.
The objectors, the plaintiffs, the defendant and its designated counsel and employees, and people who reported being class members but may not have received settlement notice.
What happened
In Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, people objecting to a proposed class settlement asked to use pseudonyms because they feared retaliation. The plaintiffs and defendant agreed their identities should remain hidden from the public but opposed hiding them from the parties and their lawyers.
The court agreed that the objectors could participate publicly under pseudonyms. But it found that the parties needed their names and addresses to determine whether they belonged to the class and received proper settlement notice. The court therefore required a process for limited disclosure through a protective order.
Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part the request. He ordered the parties and objectors to propose a protective order and directed the defendant to report who received settlement notices, whether guardians received notices, whether accommodations were provided, and when the notices were sent.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:16-cv-02623
- Donovan Frank
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
The court was considering objectors’ request to participate in the case under pseudonyms. The objectors asked that their full names and addresses be disclosed only to the court, or alternatively to the court and the parties’ outside counsel. They said they feared retaliation and believed pseudonyms were needed for their safety.
The court had preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The settlement notice required each objection to include the objector’s full legal name and address. The plaintiffs and defendant agreed that the objectors could keep their identities from the public, but opposed concealing the identities from the parties and their counsel.
The court also noted reports from people who said they were class members but had not received notice of the settlement agreement.
Pseudonym ruling
The court explained that there is a strong presumption against allowing parties to use pseudonyms. It considered the objectors’ past experiences with retaliation, their vulnerability, the public’s interest in the objections, and the parties’ need to know who the objectors were.
The court granted in part and denied in part the request. It allowed the objectors to proceed publicly under pseudonyms because the public’s interest in the content of their objections was strong, while its interest in their identities was weak. The court did not allow the objectors to conceal their identities from the parties and their counsel. It found that the parties needed the identities to determine whether the objectors were class members and whether they had received proper notice of the settlement.
Protective-order requirements
The court ordered the plaintiffs, defendant, and objectors to meet and confer within 28 days about a proposed protective order. The order must allow the objectors’ identities to be disclosed to the court, the plaintiffs, the defendant’s outside counsel, specified 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.
The parties and objectors were ordered to file a proposed protective order within 31 days and to identify and explain any provisions on which they could not agree. Within two days after the court entered a protective order, the objectors were ordered to file their identities under seal.
Settlement-notice reporting
The court ordered the defendant to file, by January 17, 2023, a list of people to whom the Department of Human Services sent settlement notice. The defendant also had to answer whether any legal guardians received notices, whether accommodations were made to help class members understand the notices, and when the notices were sent.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the objectors’ request to proceed with pseudonyms. It also issued the protective-order and settlement-notice directives described above.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.