Doe 1 v. Heartland Ivy Partners LLC et al

Filing 14

ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym 4 . See Order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 1/3/2025. (DCC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JA Doe 1, an individual,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 24-cv-4347 (JWB/DJF)

v.
Heartland Ivy Partners LLC a/k/a and f/k/a
Heartland Realty Investors, Inc. d/b/a Hotel
Ivy; Ivy Equity Partners LLC d/b/a Hotel Ivy;
and Wischermann Partners, Inc.,

ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff JA Doe 1’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym
(“Motion”) (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff is suing Defendants on a variety of federal and state law claims
arising from Defendants’ alleged role in connection with non-party Anton Lazzaro’s sex trafficking
of Plaintiff (see ECF No. 13). Plaintiff is seeking to proceed in this litigation under a pseudonym to
protect her privacy and prevent retaliation (see ECF No. 6 at 8-11). Defendants do not oppose the
Motion. (See ECF No. 4.) For the reasons given below, the Court grants the Motion.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently established the standard by which a litigant
may proceed under a pseudonym in Cajune v. Independent School District 194, 105 F.4th 1070,
1077 (8th Cir. 2024). “A party may proceed under a fictitious name only in those limited
circumstances where the party’s need for anonymity outweighs countervailing interests in full
disclosure.” Id. In weighing these interests, district courts must exercise their discretion in
considering the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1.) whether “the party seeking anonymity
was challenging government activity”; (2.) whether “identification threatened to reveal information
of a sensitive and highly personal nature”; (3.) whether “a party would be required, absent

anonymity, to admit an intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution;
(4.) “the danger of retaliation”; (5.) “whether the party’s requested anonymity poses a unique threat
of fundamental unfairness to the defendant”; (6.) “whether the public’s interest in the case is
furthered by requiring that the litigants disclose their identities”; and (7.) “whether there exist
alternative mechanisms that could protect the confidentiality of the litigants.” Id at 1077-78.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant the Motion because: (1.) in another civil matter
concerning the sex trafficking crimes at issue in this case, the District Court of Minnesota allowed
Plaintiff and her parents to proceed under pseudonyms based on a legal analysis that was consistent
with Cajune, see Doe 1 v. Lazzaro, No. 21-CV-1985 (JWB/DJF), 2023 WL 4545066, at *1-2 (D.
Minn. July 14, 2023); and (2.) the Cajune standard favors Plaintiff’s Motion. (See ECF No. 6 at 1.)
The Court agrees. In Lazzaro, the Court considered many of the same factors that the Eighth Circuit
highlighted in Cajune. Compare Lazzaro, 2023 WL 4545066, at *1-2 (factors considered included:
whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal matter; prejudice to
defendant; whether public’s interest would be furthered by requiring disclosure of plaintiffs’
identities; and whether alternatives exist to adequately protect plaintiffs’ interests), with Cajune, 105
F.4th at 1077. The underlying facts are substantially the same in this case as they were in Lazzaro,
and the Court finds that the Cajune factors weigh in Plaintiff’s favor now to the same extent as they
did before. Moreover, Defendants have stated they do not oppose the motion, whereas the defendant
in Lazzaro expressed no position. In doing so, Defendants implicitly concede that allowing Plaintiff
to proceed under a pseudonym will not unfairly prejudice them.
The Court also grants the Motion because publicly identifying Plaintiff would likely cause
her severe psychological harm due to the nature of the crimes central to this litigation. See Lazzaro,
2023 WL 4545066, at *1-2 (citing Doe v. Innovate Financial, Inc., No. 21-cv-1754 (JRT/TNL),

2022 WL 673582, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2022)); c.f. Cajune, 105 F.4th at 1077 (omitting this
factor from its analysis but emphasizing that other factors may be relevant in other cases). In
support of her Motion, Plaintiff submitted a licensed psychologist’s affidavit describing the harms
survivors of childhood sexual abuse may suffer due to the public disclosure of their identities. (ECF
No. 8.) Upon reviewing the affidavit, the Court concludes that the risk of severe psychological harm
to Plaintiff is relevant and compelling. For all these reasons, the Court grants the Motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings here, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiff JA Doe 1’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 4) is
GRANTED.
Dated: January 3, 2025

s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge