B.H. et al v. Ohio Department of Education and Workforce et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER granting #2 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 9/25/2024. (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
B.H. and K.H., Individually and on Behalf
of D.H., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action 2:24-cv-3966
Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

Ohio Department of Education and
Workforce, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. (Doc.
2). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, B.H. and K.H., individually and on behalf of their child, D.H., and all others

similarly situated, initiated the present action September 23, 2023. (Doc. 1). In short, Plaintiffs
allege that the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (“DEW”) failed to provide students
placed at the Warren County Educational Service Center (“WCESC”) and their parents procedural
safeguards and due process rights they are afforded under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (“IDEA”). (Id. at ¶ 2). They say this failure led to substantial educational harm
and the denial of free and appropriate public education to D.H. and students with disabilities placed
at WCESC. (Id.). Plaintiffs bring the present Motion to proceed under pseudonyms during this
litigation. (Doc. 2).

II.

STANDARD
Generally, a complaint must state the names of all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Yet

the Court “may excuse [parties] from identifying themselves in certain circumstances.” Doe v.
Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). “In exercising its discretion, a court must balance the
public’s common law right of access to court proceedings against the interests of litigants in
nondisclosure.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:15-CV-2519, 2015 WL 12698036, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 26, 2015) (citing In re Polemar Constr. Ltd. P’ship, 23 F. App’x. 423, 425 (6th Cir.
2001). To determine whether a party’s privacy interests outweigh the presumption in favor of
openness, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has identified factors to
consider, including:
(1) whether the [party] seeking anonymity [is] suing to challenge governmental
activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the [party] to disclose
information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; (3) whether the litigation compels [a party]
to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and
(4) whether the [party is a child].
Porter, 370 F.3d at 560 (citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1981)).
III.

DISCUSSION
According to Plaintiffs, D.H. has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the

presumption of disclosure. (Doc. 2). And by extension, his parents, as “identifying D.H.’s parents
would necessarily identify D.H.” (Id. at 2). The Court agrees.
The first Porter factor is satisfied because this suit challenges governmental activity. In
the Complaint, Plaintiffs name the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce as well as
Stephen Dackin in his official capacity as director of DEW as Defendants. (See Doc. 1).
The application of the second factor—whether this litigation will disclose information of
the utmost intimacy—also favors Plaintiffs’ request. Here, Plaintiffs say the administrative record

2

and the complaint disclose “specific and confidential information related to D.H.’s disabilities and
educational records.” (Doc. 2 at 3; see Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 27, 88–100). Plaintiffs cite no cases to support
this factor. Still, in the context of this case, the Court concludes that this constitutes information
of the utmost intimacy. See J.W. v. D.C., 318 F.R.D. 196 (D.D.C. 2016) (allowing plaintiffs to
proceed anonymously when disclosure would allow the public to easily uncover a minor’s
confidential educational record, mental health records, and personally identifiable information).
Plus, the “IDEA requires that the federal government and state and local education agencies
‘ensure the protection of the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information, and
records’ . . . [including] ‘the name of the child [and] the child’s parent.’” Id. (citing 20 U.S.C.
§ 1417(c) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.32) (cleaned up).
Concerning the fourth factor, D.H. is a minor. (Doc. 2 at 2; Doc. 1 at ¶ 27). Courts
routinely allow minors and their parents to proceed anonymously or under a pseudonym to protect
the minor’s identity. See, e.g., Doe v. Mechanicsburg Sch. Bd. of Educ., 518 F. Supp. 3d 1024,
1027 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (“Courts frequently grant protective orders to minors who challenge
governmental conduct.”); Doe v. Southfield Pub. Sch., No. 24-10760, 2024 WL 1526084, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2024) (“Courts frequently permit parents bringing suit on behalf of minors to
remain anonymous, to protect the minor’s identity.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).
Finally, allowing Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms will not hinder Defendants’
ability to litigate this case. Plaintiffs state that Defendants were provided with their identities
during the initial due process proceedings. (Doc. 2 at 3; Doc. 1 at ¶ 12 (alleging B.H. and K.H.
filed a due process complaint and request for a hearing on behalf of D.H., per the Ohio
Administrative Code § 3301-51-05 (K)); see Bd. of Educ. of the Highland Loc. Sch. Dist. v. United
States Dep’t of Educ., No. 2:16-CV-524, 2016 WL 4269080, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2016)

3

(allowing a minor to proceed anonymously, in part, because there was no question the parties knew
her true identity when she previously filed an administrative complaint)).
Given the weight of the factors, the balance of the litigants’ interests in nondisclosure
outweighs the public’s right to access court proceedings.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (Doc. 2) is

GRANTED.

Date: September 25, 2024

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4