EKJ et al v. Roberts et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 27 plaintiffs' Motion for Sealing of Case and Usage of Anonymity by Plaintiffs for Protection of Identity in Lieu of Threats of Physical Harm (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/19/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
E.K.J. and C.M.M.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ERIC ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-906-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Sealing of Case and Usage of Anonymity by
Plaintiffs for Protection of Identity in Lieu of Threats of Physical Harm, filed January 20, 2015.
Defendants have filed their responses. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
The Tenth Circuit has held:
Proceeding under a pseudonym in federal court is, by all
accounts, “an unusual procedure.” M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798,
800 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). Moreover, there does not
appear to be any specific statute or rule supporting the practice. To
the contrary, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that all
pleadings contain the name of the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a),
and Rule 17(a) specifically states that “[e]very action shall be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(a).
Nevertheless, we have recognized that there may be
exceptional circumstances warranting some form of anonymity in
judicial proceedings. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained:
Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be
permitted to proceed anonymously only in those
exceptional cases involving matters of highly
sensitive and personal nature, real danger of physical
harm, or where the injury litigated against would be
incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s
identity. The risk that a plaintiff may suffer some
embarrassment is not enough.

Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992). We have held that
it is proper to weigh the public interest in determining whether some
form of anonymity is warranted.
Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed
to present any exceptional circumstances warranting some form of anonymity in the instant action.
The instant action does not involve matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature and the injury
litigated against will not be incurred as a result of the disclosure of plaintiffs’ identities.
Additionally, the Court finds plaintiffs have not established a real danger of physical harm if they
are not allowed to proceed anonymously. While plaintiffs allege they have received threats of
physical harm, the Court finds allowing the usage of anonymity by plaintiffs in the instant action
would likely not have any impact on plaintiffs’ receipt of threats, as plaintiffs are being criminally
prosecuted in their actual names in Lincoln County District Court as a result of the events at issue
in the case at bar. Further, the Court finds that, for the same reasons set forth above, plaintiffs have
failed to set forth a sufficient basis for sealing this case.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for Sealing of Case and Usage of
Anonymity by Plaintiffs for Protection of Identity in Lieu of Threats of Physical Harm [docket no.
27]. Plaintiffs’ real names, Elbert Kirby, Jr. and Caleb Matthew Meadows, shall be substituted for
the plaintiffs’ initials in this case, and all pleadings filed subsequent to this Order shall include
plaintiffs’ real names.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2015.