Doe v. Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC

Filing 15

ORDER granting 9 plaintiff's motion to proceed in pseudonym. Plaintiff shall promptly provide a copy of this order to Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC, and defendant may contact plaintiff counsel to obtain Doe's identity, to which plaintiff counsel must respond. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell on 3/7/2025. (TLP)

Case 2:25-cv-00069-JES-NPM

Document 15

Filed 03/07/25

Page 1 of 3 PageID 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.

2:25-cv-69-JES-NPM

INFLECTION RISK SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Jane Doe brings this suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
U.S.C. § 1681, against defendant Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC. Doe alleges that
her criminal records were automatically expunged over two years ago under
Michigan’s Clean Slate law, MCL § 780.621 et seq. Nevertheless, Inflection Risk
Solutions published her criminal records in a consumer report to Airbnb. As a result,
Doe’s Airbnb account was removed, and she was prevented from booking necessary
accommodations for family travel related to competitive barrel racing—a primary
source of income. Because this action will necessarily include a discussion of Doe’s
expunged criminal records, she moves for leave to proceed in pseudonym for pretrial
public filings (Doc. 9). For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the motion.
Generally, every pleading must name the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
But a party “may proceed anonymously by establishing a substantial privacy right
which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of

Case 2:25-cv-00069-JES-NPM

Document 15

Filed 03/07/25

Page 2 of 3 PageID 68

openness in judicial proceedings.” Doe v. Neverson, 820 F. App’x 984, 986 (11th
Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). The court considers various factors under the totality
of the circumstances in determining whether privacy outweighs openness in a
particular case. Those factors include “whether the party seeking anonymity ‘(1) is
challenging government activity; (2) would be compelled, absent anonymity, to
disclose information of the utmost intimacy; or (3) would be compelled, absent
anonymity, to admit an intent to engage in illegal conduct and thus risk criminal
prosecution.’” Id. (quoting In re Chiquita Brands Int’l Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1247
(11th Cir. 2020)). And courts have also considered “‘whether the plaintiffs were
minors, whether they were threatened with violence or physical harm by proceeding
in their own names, and whether their anonymity posed a unique threat of
fundamental unfairness to the defendant.’” Id. at 986-87 (quoting Plaintiff B v.
Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011)). At bottom, a party may proceed
anonymously “only in those exceptional cases involving matters of a highly sensitive
and personal nature, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated
against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity.”
Redacted v. Redacted, No. 24-11404, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17305, *1 (11th Cir.
July 15, 2024) (citing Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992)).
Here, “the injury litigated against—the disclosure of [Doe’s] expunged
criminal record—would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of [Doe’s] identity
-2-

Case 2:25-cv-00069-JES-NPM

Document 15

Filed 03/07/25

Page 3 of 3 PageID 69

in the litigation.” Doe v. Priority Background Sols., Inc., No. 24-cv-337-JFH-SH,
2024 WL 4564534, *2 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 24, 2024) (finding plaintiff could proceed
under a pseudonym to pursue a claim under the FCRA after his expunged criminal
record was provided to a prospective employer in a background check). Further,
Doe’s anonymity in pretrial public filings does not pose a unique threat of
fundamental unfairness to Inflection Risk Solutions. To be sure, Doe acknowledges
that a protective order will allow her to disclose her identity to Inflection Risk
Solutions while otherwise keeping her identity confidential. So the parties may refer
to Jane Doe by her pseudonym. Jane Doe’s pseudonym status is for pretrial public
filings only, not discovery (on that score, the parties are encouraged to reach a
protective agreement without court involvement, see Civil Action Order, Doc. 11 at
4-5).
Accordingly, Doe’s motion to proceed in pseudonym (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
Doe shall promptly provide a copy of this order to Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC,
and defendant may contact plaintiff counsel to obtain Doe’s identity, to which
plaintiff counsel must respond.
ORDERED on March 7, 2025.

-3-