Florida Abolitionist et al v. Backpage.com LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Plaintiff Jane Doe to proceed anonymously. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 5/18/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
FLORIDA ABOLITIONIST and JANE
DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-218-Orl-28TBS

BACKPAGE.COM LLC,
EVILEMPIRE.COM, BIGCITY.COM,
CARL FERRER, MICHAEL LACEY and
JAMES LARKIN,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiff, Jane Doe’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 2). The complaint alleges that Jane Doe
was a victim of human trafficking during which time she was raped, and otherwise
psychologically and physically traumatized (Id., at 1-2). Now, she seeks leave of Court to
proceed anonymously in this action (Id., at 2).
The title of the complaint should contain the names of all of the parties. FED. R.
CIV. P. 10(a). This requirement “serves more than administrative convenience. It protects
the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities
of the parties.” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992). There is an exception to
the rule when “the plaintiff has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the ‘customary
and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.’” Id., at
323 (quoting Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981)). Courts have found that

the “substantial privacy right” test is satisfied when a plaintiff is “required to disclose
information of the utmost intimacy.” Id.
“In evaluating whether a plaintiff has shown that he has such a right, the court
‘should carefully review all the circumstances of a given case and then decide whether
the customary practice of disclosing the plaintiff’s identity should yield to the plaintiff’s
privacy concerns.’” Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186)).
Jane Doe alleges that she was eleven years old the first time she was trafficked,
that she has been raped repeatedly, and sold for sex on Defendants’ website,
Backpage.com (Doc. 2 at 1). These matters go far beyond simple embarrassment, they
are of a deeply personal and sexual nature. In fact, it is hard to imagine matters of a more
sensitive or personal nature. Jane Doe’s allegations make it reasonably foreseeable that
the disclosure of her identity in this action will cause her social stigmatization. It is also
reasonably foreseeably that the disclosure of Jane Doe’s identity will victimize her in
much the same way the Government argues in child pornography cases that the child is
victimized each time the pornographic video or photograph depicting the child is viewed.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Jane Doe’s need for anonymity outweighs
the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff Jane Doe will be permitted to proceed anonymously provided
however, she will be required to share her identity with Defendants, in a non-public
manner. Defendants and their counsel are prohibited from disclosing Jane Doe’s true
identity to the general public without prior Court approval. 1

1Plaintiff

also expresses concern that revealing her identity would “inject her name into the
contentious debate over online freedom of speech and sex trafficking. The heated nature of this debate

-2-

Counsel for Plaintiffs shall cause a copy of this Order to be served on all
Defendants.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 8, 2017.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

creates a significant risk that Jane Doe will face harassment for her role in this litigation.” (Doc. 2 at 4). The
Court will require more than a bare assertion before making this finding.

-3-