Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back! et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 79 plaintiff's motion for protective order to keep plaintiff's witnesses anonymous ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

M O U N T HOPE CHURCH, P l a in tif f , v. B A S H BACK!, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _________________________/ C A S E NO. 1:09-CV-427 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for a protective order to keep P lain tiff 's witnesses anonymous. (Dkt. No. 79.) Defendants have not filed a response to this m o tio n , although the time period for responding has expired. S e v e ra l circuits have held that anonymity is appropriate where the need for anonymity o u tw e ig h s prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the in d iv id u a l's identity. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th C ir. 2000) (citing cases from various federal circuit courts). The need for anonymity arises " w h e n identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm." Id. Plaintiff

p r e s e n ts evidence that Defendant Bash Back and its supporters have directed threats and in tim id a tin g language towards individuals and organizations that have come forward in s u p p o rt of Plaintiff. For example, one e-mail from Bash Back can be read to encourage the

v a n d a lis m of the Arizona office of the Alliance Defense Fund, the organization representing P la in tif f in this matter. (Dkt. No. 81 Ex. 4.) In addition, after state representative Dave A g e m a publicly expressed disapproval of the disruption of religious services, a Bash Back s u p p o rte r suggested that representative Agema should "watch [his] f***ing back." (Dkt. No. 8 1 Ex. 6.) The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence that its w itn esse s face a credible threat of retaliation if they are required to testify openly in support o f Plaintiff, and that the anonymity of Plaintiff's witnesses is appropriate.1 I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a protective order to keep P la in t if f ' s witnesses anonymous (Dkt. No. 79) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will assign to each

o f its witnesses a number, one through one-hundred. Plaintiff will file with the Court under s e a l a spreadsheet containing the true identity of each witness and the number that has been a ss ig n e d to the witness. Defendants' counsel of record shall be permitted to view the s p r e a d sh e e t upon adequately representing to the Court that, as an officer of the Court, D ef en d an ts ' counsel will maintain the confidentiality of the true identities of Plaintiff's w itn e ss e s. Throughout the course of these proceedings, Plaintiff's witnesses shall be re q u ire d to disclose the city in which they reside, but they will not be required to disclose any in f o rm a tio n that could jeopardize their anonymity.

Dated: April 22, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

It is reasonable for the Court to assume that, if Defendants were truly concerned that they would be prejudiced by Plaintiff's witnesses' anonymity, they would have filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. 2

1