Doe v. Gwyn

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 14 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 4/5/18. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JOHN DOE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARK GWYN, in his official capacity as
)
Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 3:17-CV-504-TWP-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective
Order [Doc. 14]. For grounds, Plaintiff asserts that he is challenging the constitutionality of
Tennessee’s sex offender registration law and that as a registered sex offender, he belongs to a
highly stigmatized group. Plaintiff continues that forcing him to disclose his identity in public
records could subject him and his family to significant harm. Plaintiff states that he fears for his
personal safety if his identity is publicly disclosed because of the widespread hostility toward
registered sex offenders. He continues that his fear for his personal safety is heightened by the
fact that if his name becomes known, anyone can easily determine his whereabouts by searching
the public sex offender registry. Plaintiff continues that he fears such publicity could make it
harder for him to obtain or maintain employment, education, or housing in the future.
As an initial matter, the Court observes that no party has responded in opposition to the
Motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2 (“Failure to respond to a

motion may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought.”). Further, the Sixth Circuit
has explained that “a complaint must state the name of all parties.” Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558,
560 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). In determining whether this requirement may
be excused, courts should review several factors, including “(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking
anonymity are suing to challenge governmental activity; (2) whether 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.” Id.
In the instant matter, Plaintiff argues that he is challenging governmental activity and that
much of the information disclosed in the Complaint and disclosed during discovery is highly
personal. Further, Plaintiff states that he is challenging the Tennessee law on grounds of vagueness
and has alleged that he cannot always comply with the law because he does not know what it
requires. Plaintiff states that public identification could lead to his prosecution for inadvertent
failures to comply with the exceedingly complex requirements of the law. Finally, Plaintiff
submits that a protective order will not hamper Defendant’s ability to present a defense because
he agrees to disclose his identity to Defendant.
The Court has considered the above factors and finds that they weigh in favor of allowing
Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym, especially in light of no opposition to the Motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order [Doc. 14]
is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS as follows:
1. All documents filed with the Court that contain the name of Plaintiff
or other information that identifies Plaintiff or his family members,
directly or indirectly, shall be filed under seal. In all publicly-filed
documents, Plaintiff shall be identified only by his pseudonym ‘John
Doe.”
2

2. If requested by Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel shall disclose the
name of Plaintiff to counsel for Defendant.
3. Counsel for Defendant may disclose the identity of Plaintiff to the
named Defendant, employees of Defendant, and experts retained in
this case, but only to the minimum extent necessary to litigate this
action.
4. Individuals to whom disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity is made shall
not further disclose that information to any other person without first
obtaining confirmation from Defendant’s counsel that such
disclosure is necessary to litigate this action.
5. Any person to whom disclosure is made as a result of this litigation
shall first read this Protective Order prior to having access to the
identity of Plaintiff. Counsel for Defendant shall ensure that all
persons to whom disclosure is made pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 4
are aware of this Protective Order.
6. Under no circumstances shall any person disclose Plaintiff’s name
to the media without the consent of Plaintiff’s counsel.
7. If any specific issues related to non-disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity
arise during the course of the litigation, the parties shall seek to
resolve those issues without court intervention. If the parties are
unable to agree, they shall seek further clarification from the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

3