From yesterday's decision by Judge Colleen Lawless (C.D. Ill.) in Doe v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois:
In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief under Title IX and other theories following his suspension from the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign following the University's determination that he was responsible for a sexual assault. At the outset of this litigation, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The Court entered a Protective Order which provided that Plaintiff would pursue this litigation under the pseudonym "John Doe" and that the parties would refer to Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend as "Jane Roe."
On December 11, 2024, following the Seventh Circuit's decisions in Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University, 101 F.4th 485 (7th Cir. 2024) and Doe v. Loyola University Chicago, 100 F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024), Defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois … moved for reconsideration of the Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, which Plaintiff and non-party Jane Roe oppose….
A unique issue presented in this case is that Plaintiff was found responsible for sexual misconduct and, on a different occasion, after filing a complaint against Jane Roe, Plaintiff also was found to be a victim of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Roe. Roe disputes the allegations against her while also contending the process was unfair to her. She also states that her sanction was to write a paper and remain on probation for one year, after which her record was cleared of misconduct.
While the Court presumes that greater confidentiality protections are warranted for sexual misconduct victims as the Seventh Circuit suggested, see Loyola University, the Court concludes that anonymity on that basis does not extend to Plaintiff here because his complaint focuses on what he alleges were improper and unfair proceedings which resulted in a finding that he was responsible for sexual misconduct, thereby leading to his dismissal from the University. This case does not concern the allegations made by John Doe against Jane Roe. {For the same reason, to the extent that Jane Roe bases her opposition to disclosing Plaintiff's identity on the fact that this litigation includes allegations about Roe's alleged conduct toward Doe with which she disputes and claims are false, the Court is not considering any argument by Roe that Doe's identity should not be disclosed on that basis.}
The Court will turn to whether the disclosure of Plaintiff's real name in this case would allow others to identify Jane Roe….
