In Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Servs. Corp., decided yesterday by Judge Janet Hall (D. Conn.)'s decision, Yale New Haven Health employees sued to challenge Yale New Haven's COVID-19 vaccine protocols. Those plaintiffs who sued pseudonymously apparently all received exemptions from the vaccine mandate, but "were required to submit negative COVID-19 test results each week" from mid-2021 to mid-2022. They are alleging that Yale New Haven, acting in concert with the government, violated their due process and equal protection rights.
The merits, though, aren't yet before the court; rather, the question was whether the plaintiffs could sue pseudonymously, hiding their identities from both the defendant and the public. No, the court said:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), "[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]" This requirement "serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly." {"[I]dentifying the parties to [a] proceeding is an important dimension of publicness [because] [t]he people have a right to know who is using their courts."} … When determining whether pseudonyms are appropriately used, the court, in its discretion, must balance "the plaintiff's interest in anonymity … against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant." …
This case involves a company policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination or testing, and, therefore, is not a highly sensitive matter. Indeed, "[t]he fact that a case involves a medical issue is not a sufficient reason for allowing the use of a fictitious name, even though many people are understandably secretive about their medical problems." …
