Williams et al. v. Cuyahoga County et al.

Filing 27

Opinion and Order: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed in this matter using only her initials (ECF No. 6 ). Judge J. Philip Calabrese on 2/7/2024. (R,AP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NANCY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-cv-1879
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong

OPINION AND ORDER
Three Plaintiffs, Nancy Williams, Justin Williams, and an individual currently
identified as T.T., filed suit challenging the administrative processes within the Ohio
Department of Child Services and Cuyahoga County that investigate and make
administrative findings of child abuse and neglect. One of the plaintiffs, T.T., seeks
to proceed pseudonymously using her initials. (ECF No. 6.) Defendants oppose.
(ECF No. 21.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff T.T.’s motion
to proceed in this matter using only her initials.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to her motion, Plaintiff T.T. worked in childcare for over a decade.
(ECF No. 6, PageID #79.)

In 2020, she was allegedly fired as a result of a

substantiated finding of medical neglect by the Cuyahoga County Department of
Children and Family Services. (Id.) Though never charged with a crime and no
proceedings in juvenile court followed, T.T. unsuccessfully appealed that
administrative finding. (Id., PageID #80.)

Along with two others, Plaintiff T.T. filed a complaint against Cuyahoga
County and three individuals in their official capacities as directors or officers of
Cuyahoga County and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, citing
violations of Plaintiffs’ rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(ECF No. 1.) Also, Plaintiff T.T. filed this motion to proceed on initials. (ECF No. 6.)
After the Court granted an extension of time (ECF No. 18), Defendants timely
responded, opposing Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 21.)
ANALYSIS
A motion to proceed by pseudonym invites a court to weigh a plaintiff’s privacy
interests against the strong presumption favoring open judicial proceedings. See Doe
v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983). Generally, “[t]he public has a right to know
who the parties are.” Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Doe, 323 F. Supp. 3d 954, 959
(E.D. Mich. 2018) (citing Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Doe, 876 F.3d 831, 838 (6th
Cir. 2017)). But exceptional circumstances may override that interest.
“Proceeding pseudonymously is the exception rather than the rule, and a
plaintiff faces a heavy burden to avoid her obligation under the rules of civil procedure
to disclose her identity.” Doe v. University of Akron, No. 5:15-cv-2309, 2016 WL
4520512, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2016) (internal quotations omitted). The Sixth
Circuit identifies four considerations to guide this determination:
(1)

Whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to
challenge governmental activity;

2

(2)

Whether the prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs
to disclose information “of the utmost intimacy”;

(3)

Whether the litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an
intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal
prosecution; and

(4)

Whether the plaintiffs are children.

Porter, 370 F.3d at 560 (quoting Doe v. Stegall, 623 F.2d 180, 185–86 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Courts also consider whether allowing a plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym would
force a defendant to litigate with insufficient information to defend its case. Citizens
for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh, 123 F. App’x 630, 636 (6th Cir. 2005).
In this case, Defendants already know T.T’s identity as a result of
communications before the lawsuit. (ECF No. 6, PageID #83–84.) Accordingly,
Defendants have sufficient information regarding the identity of T.T. to prepare their
respective cases. Further, Plaintiff acknowledges that the third and fourth factors do
not apply on the facts alleged. (Id., PageID #83.) Therefore, the Court focuses on the
remaining considerations.
I.

Challenging Governmental Activity
Plaintiffs challenge the administrative process relating to findings of child

abuse and neglect. However, the existence of a challenge to government activity does
not substantiate a finding of anonymity on its own. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. Instead,
this factor requires a court to examine whether, in challenging governmental activity,
the “plaintiffs [must] reveal their beliefs about a particularly sensitive topic that
could subject them to considerable harassment.” Ericksen v. United States, No. 16-

3

cv-13038, 2017 WL 264499, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2017) (quoting Porter, 370 F.3d
at 560).
Plaintiff T.T argues that her involvement in this case will require revealing
her belief that people with administrative findings of neglect should be able to
challenge that label and continue working in childcare. (ECF No. 6, PageID #82.)
She maintains that this belief is sufficiently sensitive to warrant proceeding with a
pseudonym. (Id.) While Plaintiff will likely have to provide further details about her
own experience, the core of Plaintiff’s claims and arguments involve governmental
processes, not T.T.’s personal views on child abuse or neglect itself. To the extent
that proceeding with this litigation by name requires the disclosure of beliefs that
might rise to the level the law contemplates under this facts, T.T. alleges that she
already has suffered adverse consequences, but there is no reasonable basis to believe
that she will suffer further harassment as a result of this litigation. And a belief that
a person is entitled to greater due process is unlikely to require disclosure of beliefs
of a sufficiently sensitive nature to invite harassment. This factor does not compel a
finding that proceeding by pseudonym is appropriate.
II.

Disclosure of Intimate Information
Next, the Court examines whether Plaintiff T.T will be forced to disclose

information “of the utmost intimacy” during the litigation. Porter, 370 F.3d at 560.
Litigants must demonstrate that they or their family may be subject to a level of
danger and condemnation if their identity becomes known, similar to that associated
with criminal behavior. Id. Plaintiff T.T. argues that the public might equate her
administrative finding of child neglect with a criminal conviction.
4

(ECF No. 6,

PageID #82.) Further, she asserts that, unlike a criminal conviction, administrative
findings are highly confidential. (Id., PageID #83.)
Defendant counters that an administrative finding of child neglect does not
rise to the level required to make proceeding under a pseudonym appropriate. (ECF
No. 21, PageID #166.)

Courts reject such requests where proceedings required

revealing the identity of adults who had allegedly been child pornography victims,
see K.R.B. v. Elizabethtown Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:17-cv-605, 2017 WL 11483915, at
*1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2017); disclosing disabilities, Doe v. Carson, Nos. 19-1566/191714, 2020 WL 2611189, at *2 (6th Cir. May 6, 2020); and the disclosure of
psychological issues and associated medications, Doe v. University of Akron, No. 5:15cv-2309, 2016 WL 4520512, at *3–5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2016). Though the Court
appreciates the sensitive nature of Plaintiff T.T’s disclosure, it does not find that this
concern outweighs the presumption of openness—at least not on the facts presented
here. After all, the other two Plaintiffs elected to proceed by name, signaling that the
significance of the legal issues in the litigation outweigh the stigma from the nature
of the allegations involved.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that this case should be decided in line with another
recent ruling from the Northern District of Ohio, which found that proceeding by
pseudonym was appropriate where the plaintiff would be likely to disclose sensitive
information “about DCFS findings and [the plaintiff’s] children.” Doe v. Cuyahoga
Cnty, No. 1:22-cv-1677, 2023 WL 2374870, at *3 (N.D. Ohio March 6, 2023). (ECF
No. 6, PageID #83.) There, the plaintiff was not litigating alongside other similarly

5

situated plaintiffs who proceeded using their full names.

Additionally, the

defendants in that case did not oppose the plaintiff’s motion to proceed by pseudonym.
Id., at *1. Therefore, the ruling in Doe might be appropriate on its facts, but is not
persuasive on the different facts presented here.
On the record before it, the Court finds that revealing details about an
administrative finding of neglect does not rise to the required level of utmost
intimacy.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff T.T’s motion to proceed
with initials. If the case withstands Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court will set
an amendment deadline, by which time Plaintiff shall amend the complaint to comply
with this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024

J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio

6