Doe et al v. Frontier Lodging of Spearfish, L.L.C.

Filing 24

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Proceed under Pseudonyms. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 01/28/2025. (RMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL
GUARDIANS OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN,
JOHNNY DOE AND JACK DOE; AND JANE
DOE, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL
GUARDIANS OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN,
JOHNNY DOE AND JACK DOE;

5:24-CV-05076-RAL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FRONTIER
L.L.C.,

LODGING

OF

SPEARFISH,

Defendant.

Before this Court is Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms. Doc. 18. For the
following reasons, the motion is granted.
I.

Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe are the parents of minor children, Johnny Doe and Jack Doe.
Defendant Frontier Lodging of Spearfish, L.L.C.("Frontier"), owns and operates the Holiday Inn
Convention Center and Lucky's 13 Pub in Spearfish, South Dakota. In December 2023,Plaintiffs
and their children visited Lucky's 13 Pub for breakfast with family. Doc. 18 at 2. While there,
Plaintiffs' two children used the public restroom that was shared between the Holiday Inn and
Lucky's 13 Pub. Id. at 2-3. They were unaccompanied by the Plaintiffs. While in the restroom,

Raven Schilly, an employee of Frontier, sexually assaulted Johnny Doe and Jack Doe. Id. at 3.

1

Schilly was ultimately charged with and convicted ofsexual contact with a minor and kidnapping,
and was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Id.

On October 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Frontier, alleging negligent
hiring, retention, and supervision of Schilly and failure to exercise control over Schilly. Doc. 1.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint using pseudonyms,John and Jane Doe. In its Answer,Frontier

objected to Plaintiffs using pseudonyms. Doc. 9. On December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their
motion to proceed under pseudonyms. Doc. 18. Frontier objects. Doc. 22.
II.

Discussion

"The title ofthe complaint must name all the parties...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Further,
Rule 17(a) requires that "[a]n action ... be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."
"[Njothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... allows plaintiffs to proceed under

pseudonyms," and "[fjederal courts disfavor the use of fictitious names in legal proceedings"
because it "runs afoul of the public's First Amendment interest in public proceedings and their
common law right ofaccess thereto." Caiune v. Independent Sch. Dist. 194.105 F.4th 1070,1076

(8th Cir. 2024). Nevertheless, parties may proceed imder pseudonyms in certain limited
circumstances.

"[PJarty anonymity is only warranted when the need for anonymity outweighs
countervailing interests in full disclosure." Id at 1077. To make such a determination, this Court
must employ a balancing inquiry, considering the following non-exhaustive list offactors:
(1,) whether the party seeking anonymity was challenging government activity;(2.)
whether identification threatened to reveal information of a sensitive and highly

personal nature;(3.) whether a party would be required, absent anonymity,to admit
an intention to engage in illegal conduct,thereby risking criminal prosecution;(4.)
the danger of retaliation; (5.) whether the party's requested anonymity poses a
unique threat offundamental unfairness to the defendant;(6.) whether the public's
interest in the case is furthered by requiring that the litigants disclose their

identities; and (7.) whether there exist alternative mechanisms that could protect
the confidentiality ofthe litigants.
Doe V. Heartland Iw Partners LLC. No. 24-cv-4347, 2025 WL 26643, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 3,

2025)(cleaned up and citation omitted). Some of the factors are not present in this case. This
case does not involve a challenge to government activity nor is there a risk ofcriminal prosecution
to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also do not argue that there is a danger of retaliation. This Court
considers the remaining factors.
Identification ofthe Plaintiffs' identities threatens to reveal information of a sensitive and

highly personal nature. This case involves the sexual assault of Plaintiffs' minor children in a
hotel bathroom. Sexual assault is "a personal matter of the utmost intimacy," Roe v. St. Louis
Univ.. No. 4:08CV1474, 2009 WL 910738, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 2009), and information
regarding a sexual assault is of a sensitive and highly personal nature. As such, "courts have
allowed plaintiffs to use fictitious names to protect the privacy of vulnerable parties, such as

children and rape victims." Caiune. 105 F.4^ at 1077.
Moreover, identification of the Plaintiffs will reveal information about the sexual assault,

primarily the identities ofthe child victims. The victims here were minor children. At the time of
the offense, Johnny Doe was six years old,and Jack Doe was three years old. They are still minors,
and their identities must be redacted under the Local Civil Rules for the United States District

Court for the District of South Dakota. Under D.S.D. Civ. LR 5.2A,"parties must refrain from

including, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the ...[n]ame of an individual
known to be a minor." Local Rule 5.2 further states only the initials of the minor may be used.

Despite the protection afforded to their children under the Local Rules, the Plaintiffs request that
their identities be protected too. Although the Plaintiffs themselves were,not the victims of the
sexual assault, their identities "track their children's identities, which means their children's

identities can be readily surmised." Int'l Partners for Ethical Care Inc. v. Tnslee. No. 3:23-cv-

05736,2023 WL 7017765,at *1(W.D. Wash. Oct. 25,2023). "Ordering disclosure ofthe parent's
identities would place—^in effect—^personally identifiable and confidential information about"
their minor children in the public record. S.E.S. v. Galena Unified Sch. Dist. No. 499, No. 182042,2018 WL 3389878,at *2(D.Kan. July 12,2018). Identifying the Plaintiffs' identities would
threaten to reveal the identities of their two minor children and the details of the sexual assault

they each endured. Allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms would offer additional
protection to their children.

Moreover, allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms would not pose a unique
threat offundamental unfairness to the defendant. Frontier has not identified any specific harm it

would suffer ifthe Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed using pseudonyms. Further, Frontier knows

the real names of the Plaintiffs and thus will hot be impeded from conducting meaningful
discovery.

Does 1-8 v. Preslev. No. 3:23-cv-230, 2024 WL 4108015, at *2(E.D. Ark. Sept.

6, 2024)(collecting cases).

Next,this Court considers whether the public's interest in the case is furthered by requiring
that the litigants disclose their identities. The public has a First Amendment interest in public
proceedings.

Caiune. 105 F.4th at 1076. However, when "the plaintiffs' identities are not

central to the issues raised by a case . . . the public interest may not be harmed by permitting
plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously." Doe 1 v. GitHub. Inc. 672 F. Supp. 3d 837, 854(N.D.
Gal. 2023). Here, the Plaintiffs' identities are not central to issues of concern to the public in this
case. The Plaintiffs are bringing this suit on behalf of their two minor children and alleging that
the children were harmed by Frontier's negligence. Although the Plaintiffs must prove that their
two minor children were harmed by Frontier, the children's identities must remain protected under

the Local Rules. Thus, the public interest does not weigh against the Plaintiffs from proceeding
under pseudonyms.
Finally, this Court must consider whether there exist alternative mechanisms that could

protect the confidentiality of the Plaintiffs. "Other mechanisms that exist include redaction of

documents and/or sealing, protective orders, and confidentiality agreements." Doe v. Townes. 19cv-8034,2020 WL 2395159,at *6(S.D.N.Y. May 12,2020). However,"[bjecause the identity of

the [children] generally is the concern here, rather than certain specific information that could be
redacted or sealed,this factor favors anonymity." Doe v. Saiina. 23-CV-3529,2024 WL 1259362,
at *7(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024).
After weighing the various factors, this Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' interest in

proceeding imder pseudonyms outweighs countervailing interests in full disclosure. Thus, the
motion to proceed imder pseudonyms, Doc. 18, is granted.
Frontier also argues that the Plaintiffs failed to follow the proper procedure to proceed
under pseudonyms. Frontier cites to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) and D.S.D. LR 10.1 to support its
argument, despite neither source prescribing a process for proceeding anonymously. Frontier also
cites to Doe v. Aberdeen Sch. Dist.. 1;18-CV-01025, 2019 WL 4452136, at *2 (D.S.D. Sep. 17,

2019), an opinion from this District, which lays out the "usual circumstances under which a court
determines whether a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym." That opinion states a plaintiff
should file a complaint under seal along with a pre-service motion to proceed pseudonymously.

In that case,the plaintifffailed to follow the suggested process, and the court directed the plaintiffs
to refile their complaint under seal, using their real names.

Frontier here appears to request that this Court do the same. In addition to providing
Frontier with the information required in a complaint under Rule 10, ordering the Plaintiffs to

refile their Complaint under seal assists this Court in conducting necessary checks on potential
conflicts of interest the undersigned or any Magistrate Judge may have. Thus, this Court will
follow the court in Doe v. Aberdeen Sch. Dist. and direct the Plaintiffs to refile their Complaint
under seal.
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms, Doc. 18, is granted.
It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs refile their Complaint under seal using their real names as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courts local rules.

DATED this ^|^day of January, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE