Doe 1 v. Lazzaro

Background

JA-Father Doe 1 and JA-Mother Doe 1, acting individually and as parents and natural guardians of JA-Minor Doe 1, and JA-Minor Doe 1 sued Anton Joseph Lazzaro. The opinion states that the lawsuit concerns the alleged sex trafficking of JA-Minor Doe 1 when she was 16. The plaintiffs asked to litigate under pseudonyms to protect the minor’s privacy and prevent additional trauma.

The plaintiffs argued that pseudonyms would help protect victims of sexual abuse from harm caused by public disclosure, that the case involved highly sensitive matters, and that identifying JA-Minor Doe 1 could cause further trauma and emotional distress. They also argued that her identity had not been publicized and that Lazzaro would not be prejudiced because he already knew the plaintiffs’ names and identifying information.

Court’s analysis

The court considered factors addressing the sensitivity of the litigation, the possible harms from disclosure, prejudice to the defendant, whether the identity had remained confidential, the public interest in disclosure, and whether another method could adequately protect the plaintiffs’ confidentiality.

The court found that the case involved highly sensitive and personal matters concerning JA-Minor Doe 1. It found that public disclosure of her name could cause additional harm, including the psychological harms described in an affidavit from psychologist Susan Phipps-Yonas. The court also found that Lazzaro would not be prejudiced because he knew the plaintiffs’ identities.

The court stated that, to the best of its knowledge, JA-Minor Doe 1’s identity had remained confidential during Lazzaro’s criminal proceedings. It further found that any material public interest in identifying a person subjected to child abuse as a minor was substantially outweighed by the plaintiffs’ interests in protecting JA-Minor Doe 1’s privacy and preventing additional harm. The court concluded that no alternative mechanism would adequately protect her interests. Because identifying the parents by name would almost certainly identify JA-Minor Doe 1, the court allowed the parents to use pseudonyms as well.

Ruling

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms. The order states that JA-Father Doe 1, JA-Mother Doe 1, and JA-Minor Doe 1 may proceed under pseudonyms throughout the proceedings.