MARY'S HOUSE, INC., et al v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 04/16/2012. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jane Doe Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Docket Entry 8 ) is GRANTED.(Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MARY’S HOUSE, INC., et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
et al.,
Defendants.

1:12CV169

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Jane Doe Plaintiffs’
Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Docket Entry 8).

For the reasons

that follow, the Court will grant said Motion.
BACKGROUND
This case began when Plaintiffs Mary’s House, Inc. and Jane
Does 1-8 filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant State of North
Carolina and various of its agencies and officials discriminated
against persons suffering from substance abuse-related disabilities
in violation of federal law and the United States Constitution.
(See Docket Entry 1.) Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 thereafter filed the
instant Motion asserting that they “are all recovering substance
abusers who are receiving treatment for addiction.”
8 at 1.)

(Docket Entry

In said Motion, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 “request that

their identities be kept confidential, that they be allowed to
proceed

in

this

civil

action

anonymously,

and

that

they

be

identified in all pleadings and documents as ‘Jane Doe’ and a

number.”

(Id. at 2.)

Defendants responded in opposition (Docket

Entry 17) and Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 replied (Docket Entry 18).
DISCUSSION
The parties agree that the resolution of the instant Motion
turns upon the Court’s analysis of a five-factor test set forth in
James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993).
Docket Entry 9 at 3, with Docket Entry 17 at 3.)

(Compare

Those factors

consist of the following:
[1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting
party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that
may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a
matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; [2]
whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory
physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even
more critically, to innocent non-parties; [3] the ages of
the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be
protected; [4] whether the action is against a
governmental or private party; and, relatedly, [5] the
risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an
action against it to proceed anonymously.
James, 6 F.3d at 238.
The Court finds as follows as to each of the foregoing
factors:
1) Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 have asserted privacy interests
that transcend concerns arising from litigation in general and that
involve the sensitive and highly personal matter of their status as
substance abusers seeking treatment;
2) Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 have failed to show that their
identification in this case would expose them (or their minor
children) to any non-speculative risk of retaliatory harm;
-2-

3) Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 credibly have alleged that they
seek to protect not only their own privacy interests but also the
privacy interests of their minor children;
4) Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 have brought this action against
governmental, not private, parties; and
5) Defendants have failed to establish, at least at this
stage, that they face any significant risk of unfair prejudice from
an order allowing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 to proceed anonymously.1
CONCLUSION
The first, third, fourth, and fifth factors thus support the
position of Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8, whereas the second factor
supports Defendants’ position.

On balance, the Court concludes

that the relevant factors, both quantitatively and qualitatively,
weigh in favor of allowing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-8 to proceed
anonymously, at least at this time.

1

In addressing possible sources of prejudice resulting from
allowance of the instant Motion, Defendants argued that “Plaintiffs
have clearly placed their health at issue in this case, and cannot
prohibit Defendant[s] from discovering information relevant to this
cause of action, including substance abuse information and other
health information.” (Docket Entry 17 at 10.) Plaintiffs Jane Doe
1-8, however, have conceded that “[a]nonymity does not preclude
discovery.”
(Docket Entry 18 at 6.)
Accordingly, the Court
concludes that Defendants’ sole identified example of potential
unfairness does not appear applicable in this case. Should that
circumstance change, Defendants could ask the Court to revisit this
issue.
-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jane Doe Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Proceed Anonymously (Docket Entry 8) is GRANTED.

/S/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
April 16, 2012

-4-