Doe v. Vassar College
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-09601
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Doe v. Vassar College, Judge Roman granted permission to use pseudonyms and redact names in evidence concerning alleged non-consensual touching.
John Doe and another student identified as Jane Doe may proceed under pseudonyms, and their names may be redacted from documentary evidence; Vassar College was not found to be prejudiced by that arrangement.
What happened
In Doe v. Vassar College, John Doe asked to use pseudonyms for himself and another student and to redact their names from documents. Vassar College did not oppose the request.
The court considered the sensitive and personal nature of allegations involving an alleged sexual assault, possible harm from disclosure, the public interest in protecting identities, and whether Vassar College would be prejudiced. It found that these considerations favored anonymity.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the motion. John Doe may proceed under that name, the other student may be identified as Jane Doe, and the parties may redact their names from documents submitted in the case.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Vassar College · No. 7:19-cv-09601
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 13, 2019
Background
John Doe asked the court for permission to use pseudonyms for himself and another student in this case. He also asked to redact their names from documentary evidence. The motion was unopposed. The opinion describes the allegations as involving non-consensual touching and an educational institution's handling of an alleged sexual assault.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires pleadings to identify the parties. The court explained that using a pseudonym is an exception that may be allowed when the party's need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity. Relevant considerations include the sensitivity of the subject, possible physical or mental harm from disclosure, the vulnerability of the people involved, whether the identities have remained confidential, the public interest in disclosure, and whether other confidentiality protections are available.
Court's analysis
The court found that the case involved highly sensitive and personal matters. It stated that public exposure could be personally damaging to both the victim and the accused, that disclosure of the victim's identity could cause psychological trauma, and that protecting sexual-assault victims' identities serves a public interest by helping ensure that other victims are not deterred from reporting similar crimes. The court also found that Vassar College would not be prejudiced by the use of pseudonyms and that anonymity would protect the confidentiality of the plaintiff and, more importantly, the victim.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the motion. The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed as “John Doe,” directed that the other student be identified as “Jane Doe,” and granted permission to redact the names of the plaintiff and the other student from documentary evidence submitted in the action. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as Docket No. 6.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.