In recognition of Judge Sarah Merriam’s yesterday’s ruling, Doe v. Gerken (D. Conn.) (now Stubbs v. Gerken):
[P]Plaintiffs, who are or were students at Yale Law School, claim that the deans and the Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion of Yale Law School “worked together to try to block” plaintiffs’ access to the high-paying jobs that Yale Law School students typically have. Plaintiffs claim that defendants tried to “attempt” to blackmail them from the prestigious job opportunities available to Yale Law School students.[ed]They were to “blackball” them “as revenge for plaintiffs refusing to lie in support Yale University’s investigation into a faculty member of the law school.
According to Rule 10 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[t]The title of the complaint should name all the parties[.]” “It is a simple requirement that allows public inspection of the judicial process. This cannot be overlooked. … “Identifying parties in a proceeding is an important dimension of publicness, as people have a right to know who is using their courts.” …
However, courts have “drawn out some exceptions from the requirement to disclose the names of all parties” which allows plaintiffs to continue anonymously. … “[P]seudonyms are the exception and not the rule, and in order to receive the protections of anonymity, a party must make a case rebutting … the presumption of disclosure.” …
The Court should permit plaintiffs to go anonymously, as their claims are “highly sensitive and personal.” The plaintiffs argue that the Court should allow them to proceed anonymously because their “claims are highly sensitive and personal in nature.”[]”of defendants’ alleged harassment, false defamatory and retaliatory remarks[]”About plaintiffs” is “likely ” to cause social stigmatization. …
Contrary what plaintiffs claim, the case does not concern sensitive matters similar to those that are recognized by other Courts of the Second Circuit. This case does not involve minors, allegations of sexual misconduct, or some other truly sensitive matter…. “[C]Ourts believe that there is insufficient evidence to support proceeding anonymously without embarrassment or social stigmatization. Accordingly, courts should prohibit parties from proceeding anonymously to preserve their professional and economic lives. …
The second is that plaintiffs cannot prove defendants and others will respond to them filing the lawsuit. Plaintiffs base their claims on past retaliatory acts of defendants, which defendants label as “false” but do not provide any evidence to back up the assertion that there was “a conspiracy”.[f]Retaliatory harm can result from the identification of plaintiffs. This is because defendants know the true identity of plaintiffs.[I]A plaintiff who is concerned about retaliation or threats to his/her associates might disclose their identity prior to the defendants. This could negate any requests for anonymity. For the same reasons, plaintiffs have not made an adequate showing that disclosure of their identities presents other harms….
The identities of plaintiffs have been made public. Numerous media outlets have identified John Doe as the particular plaintiff. This information was provided by defendants in their briefing. The Court has taken judicial note of it. “A plaintiff’s privacy interest is compromised if anonymity has already been breached.” … [T]His factor is also a favorable one.
Other factors were considered by the Court. [set forth by Second Circuit precedent on pseudonymity]Both generally support disclosure. In particular: (1) Plaintiffs who are graduate students aren’t particularly susceptible to disclosure harms (“If a plaintiff doesn’t have a child, this is an exception. [vulnerability]A finding of anonymity is unlikely due to the above factors.”); (2) plaintiffs are not litigating against a governmental agency; and (3) the public’s demonstrated interest in this litigation is furthered by requiring plaintiffs to disclose their identities…. The public is entitled to know the facts of lawsuits as they occur. Among those facts is the identity of the parties…. This case does not involve abstract questions to public policy, but specific actions or incidents. Open proceedings are beneficial for the parties as well as the public. They also help the judiciary in fair adjudication and fact-finding. This type of case is beneficial to the public in the enforcement of legal and other social norms.
Finally, “[t]Public interest combined with prejudice is reflected in the scrutiny of judicial proceedings [defendants]Expensive defense against anonymous claims at trial is far less than what you would have to face [plaintiffs’]Interest in not being embarrased professionally and any financial loss that may follow.” …
Each of the plaintiffs is or used to be a student in law. They should understand that it “implements” what they are doing.[l]Public disclosure of information is a common consequence of litigation. {If this case goes to trial, then plaintiffs are likely to be witnesses in the open court. Thus, whether now or at a later stage of litigation, plaintiffs will have to face “public disclosure” that is “an inherent collateral consequence of litigation.”}
This result, as I pointed out in December, was quite likely given the precedence on the topic, but not an inescapable conclusion. This article draft provides more information on pseudonymity.