DOE v. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION et al
Filing
28
ORDER re 2 Motion to to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED, as more fully set forth in attached Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 5/9/2022. (mrm)
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION, PETER P.
BUTTIGIEG, U.S. DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION; BLANE A.
WORKIE, U.S. DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION; CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION,
ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC; UNITED
STATES DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES, XAVIER BECERRA, U.S.
DEPT. OF HHS;
Defendants,
2:22-CV-00402-WSS-CRE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Background
On March 4, 2022, pro se Plaintiff initiated a Complaint under the pseudonym “John Doe”
against Defendants Xavier Becerra, Peter P. Buttigieg, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,
the United States Department of Health & Human Services, the United States Department of
Transportation, Rochelle Walensky, and Blane A. Workey. (ECF No. 1). In the Complaint,
“Plaintiff challenges the lawfulness of Defendants’ mandate requiring people to wear masks while
on commercial airlines, conveyances, and at transportation hubs with extremely limited and
conditional exceptions for persons with disabilities (the “mask mandate”)[.]” Compl. (ECF No. 1)
at 1 (footnotes omitted). Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendants’ purported
violation of the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41705.
1
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 7
Concurrently with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym,
arguing, inter alia, that revealing his name “[m]ay require him to disclose sensitive personal and
medical information regarding his psychological state.” Pl.’s Br. (ECF No. 2) at ¶ 2. Defendants
have filed a brief in response. (ECF No. 27).
For the reasons discussed below, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
II.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) “requires parties to a lawsuit to identify themselves
in their respective pleadings.” Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011). “Identifying the
parties to the proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The people have a right to know
who is using their courts.” Id. “A plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym runs afoul of the public’s common
law right of access to judicial proceedings.” Id.
“While not expressly permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), in exceptional
cases courts have allowed a party to proceed anonymously. “ Id. In Megless, the Third Circuit
endorsed a non-exhaustive list of nine factors a District Court should consider in determining
whether a party may proceed anonymously.
The factors in favor of anonymity included:
(1) the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept
confidential; (2) the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought
to be avoided, and the substantiality of these bases; (3) the
magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality
of the litigant’s identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal
nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically
weak public interest in knowing the litigant’s identities; (5) the
undesirability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party and
attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being
publicly identified; and (6) whether the party seeking to sue
pseudonymously has illegitimate ulterior motives.
On the other side of the scale, factors disfavoring anonymity included:
2
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 7
(1) the universal level of public interest in access to the identities of
litigants; (2) whether, because of the subject matter of this litigation,
the status of the litigant as a public figure, or otherwise, there is a
particularly strong interest in knowing the litigant’s identities,
beyond the public’s interest which is normally obtained; and (3)
whether the opposition to pseudonym by counsel, the public, or the
press is illegitimately motivated.
Megless, 654 F.3d at 409 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). This Court will
consider each of these factors.
A. Factor 1: “the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential”
As to this factor, Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, acknowledges that “his name, signature,
and contact information have already appeared on initial filings with the court.” Pl.’s Br. (ECF No.
2) at 1. Because Plaintiff’s information is currently not confidential, this factor weighs against
anonymity.
B. Factor 2: “the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the
substantiality of these bases”
Here, Plaintiff points out that he “is concerned that the proceedings may require him to
disclose sensitive personal and medical information regarding his psychological state.”1 Pl.’s Br.
(ECF No. 2) at ¶ 2. In addition, “Plaintiff is concerned that given the unusually heated nature of
debates around mask mandates and COVID-19 policies [], both he and any physicians whose
names may be exposed during the course of litigation may be subject to unwarranted scrutiny and
harassment from the general public.” Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff points to the practice of
“doxxing.” Id.
However, as Defendants point out, these fears are speculative, and Plaintiff has not pointed
to any specific threats faced by the many others who have filed COVID-19 or mask mandate
Because Plaintiff uses the gender-identifying pronoun “him” throughout his brief, this Court will
use it as well.
1
3
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 7
related lawsuits. Defs.’ Br. (ECF No. 27) at 4. Moreover, it is not clear at this juncture why
Plaintiff might have to disclose such sensitive information, and even if he does, the Court may still
grant specific requests to redact such information should that occur. “That a plaintiff may suffer
embarrassment or economic harm is not enough. Instead, a plaintiff must show both (1) a fear of
severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is reasonable.” Doe v. Middlesex County, New
Jersey, 2021 WL 130480, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2021). Thus, although Plaintiff clearly has fears,
this Court concludes that such fears have not been substantiated, and nothing in this ruling would
preclude Plaintiff from requesting redaction in the future. Accordingly, this factor weighs against
anonymity.
C. Factor 3: “the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the
litigant’s identity”
Plaintiff does not specifically address this next factor, but as Defendants point out, there
are numerous challenges to the mask mandate pending in various jurisdictions, and the plaintiffs
in those cases are not anonymous. Defs’ Br. (ECF No. 27) at 5. In fact, the plaintiffs involved in
the recent District Court decision invalidating the mask mandate, which has received national
attention, utilized their real names. See Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Biden, No. 8:21-CV1693-KKM-AEP, 2022 WL 1134138 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2022) (identifying plaintiffs Ana
Carolina Daza and Sarah Pope). Thus, this factor weighs against anonymity.
D. Factor 4: “whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or
otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigant’s
identities”
4
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 7
As to this factor, both Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the issues in this case are
primarily legal.2 Pl’s. Br. (ECF No. 2) at ¶ 8; Defs.’ Br. (ECF No. 27) at 5. Therefore, this factor
favors anonymity as asserted by Plaintiff.
E. Factor 5: “the undesirability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party and
attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being publicly identified”
Plaintiff has not asserted that he will abandon this lawsuit should he be required to disclose
his identity; thus, this factor weighs against anonymity.
F. Factor 6: “whether the party seeking to sue pseudonymously has illegitimate ulterior
motives”
Here, Defendants have not pointed out any “illegitimate ulterior motives” of Plaintiff; thus,
this factor weighs in favor of anonymity.
G. Factors 7 and 8: “the universal level of public interest in access to the identities of
litigants” and “interest in knowing the litigant’s identities” beyond typical public
interest
Defendants contend that “because Defendants are government officials and agencies,”
these factors weigh against anonymity. Defs.’ Br. (ECF No. 27) at 6. It is Plaintiff’s position that
when individuals sue the government, there is a strong interest in anonymity where a plaintiff
represents a minority interest. Pl.’s Br. (ECF No. 2) at ¶ 10. However, as Defendants point out, in
the Third Circuit, there is a principle that interest in the identities of litigants “is heightened because
Defendants are public officials and government bodies.” Megless, 654 F.3d at 411. Accordingly,
these factors weigh against permitting Plaintiff to proceed anonymously.
H. Factor 9: “whether the opposition to pseudonym by counsel, the public, or the press is
illegitimately motivated”
2
This Court accepts the parties’ agreement for the purposes of this motion; however, there may be
factual questions that arise at a procedural point in this litigation.
5
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 7
There is no indication that Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s proceeding anonymously
is illegitimately motivated. Thus, this factor weighs against anonymity.
III.
Conclusion
As the Third Circuit has pointed out, “we must acknowledge the thumb on the scale that is
the universal interest in favor of open judicial proceedings. There is universal public interest in
access to the identities of litigants.” Megless, 654 F.3d at 411. The Third Circuit has also
“noted [that] the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings always runs counter to a litigant’s
interest in anonymity—the question is whether the interest in anonymity outweighs the public’s
interest.” Doe v. Coll. of New Jersey, 997 F.3d 489, 496 (3d Cir. 2021).
While this Court concludes that two of the nine factors do weigh in Plaintiff’s favor for
permitting him to proceed utilizing a pseudonym, the other seven do not. This imbalance
demonstrates that this case is not one of those “exceptional cases” that overcomes the long-held
presumption “that judicial proceedings, civil as well as criminal, are to be conducted in public.”
Id. at 408. Plaintiff’s interest in anonymity clearly does not outweigh the public interest in open
judicial proceedings.
Accordingly, the motion to proceed anonymously (ECF No. 2) is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint on or before May 16, 2022, to reflect his true
identity.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
cc:
JOHN DOE
724 Brady Avenue
6
Case 2:22-cv-00402-WSS-CRE Document 28 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 7
Unit A
Stuebenville, OH 43952
(via U.S. First Class mail)
Ryan J. Wilk, Esq.
DOJ-USAO
(via ECF)
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?