From Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. (N.D. Ill.) in yesterday's Doe v. Ahrens:
Plaintiff John Doe has filed this suit against defendant Valery J. Ahrens, alleging that after the two engaged in a long-distance, casual relationship, conducted largely online and over the phone, Ahrens began stalking and harassing him. Doe, who describes himself in the Amended Complaint as "a self-made entrepreneur, author, internet personality, [] venture capitalist … [and] a dedicated and loving father," alleges that Ahrens sent him non-stop messages and created various social media accounts for the purpose of publishing false and unflattering information about him, often engaging with his followers to direct them to these accounts.
Further, Doe alleges that Ahrens broadcast certain private, sexual telephone exchanges between the two that, Doe says, he did not know she was recording. Doe claims these actions amount to defamation per se, false light invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law, and has invoked diversity jurisdiction for his federal suit.
With his complaint, Doe filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym, arguing that given her past behavior, Ahrens is likely to "weaponize" this case and any filings therein to "exacerbate" the harm she has already allegedly inflicted on Doe. Doe argues that given the sensitivity of Ahrens's posts about Doe, and the fact that the "veracity" of those posts will be central to his defamation claims, he should be allowed to pursue his claims without further damaging his reputation.
