Doe et al v. USA et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously. This matter is REFERRED to the magistrate for a protective order. Plaintiffs' identities to be filed UNDER SEAL for assessment of potential conflicts of interest. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/27/2016. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES DOE and SUSAN DOE,
individually and as guardians of
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-0640-SMY-DGW

vs.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed
Anonymously (Doc. 10). Plaintiffs contend that, due to the highly sensitive and private nature of
the facts involved, John—a minor child—would experience psychological harm and the family
would risk retaliation if those highly sensitive facts were made public.
As a general matter, litigating under a pseudonym is disfavored as antithetical to our
judicial system. Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004). The open nature of
proceedings allows for public access and monitoring. Id. However, the presumption that a
party's name is public information can be rebutted by showing that the harm of identification
outweighs the harm of anonymity. Id. “[T]he judge has an independent duty to determine
whether exceptional circumstances justify such a departure from the normal method of
proceeding in federal courts.” Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869,
872 (7th Cir. 1997).
A pseudonym may be used when necessary to protect the privacy of vulnerable parties.
Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) restricts filings to protect the privacy of minors.

Further, a likely target of retaliation—a “closeted homosexual,” for example—has a compelling
ground for anonymity. Doe, 360 F.3d at 669. A number of district courts have found that
transgendered plaintiffs may proceed anonymously because of the social stigma associated with
non-conforming gender identities. See Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992); Doe v.
Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 161 (N.D. Cal. 1981); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 794
F.Supp. 72, 72-73 (D.R.I. 1992).
Here, exceptional circumstances exist which rebut the presumption that a party’s identity
is public information. The potential harm in exposing the names of John’s parents—
nothwithstanding any redaction of John’s name pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5.2(a)(3)—outweighs any
potential harm to the public resulting from anonymity. Revealing Plaintiffs’ names will not only
allow for John’s identification, but will also expose Plaintiffs to the risk of retaliation by
members of the public.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. This matter is REFERRED to the
magistrate judge for the purpose of fashioning a protective order that will shield Plaintiffs’
identities. Further, within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file their
true identities under seal so that the Court and all appearing attorneys may assess any potential
conflicts of interest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 27, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

2