From Doe v. Tenn. Bd. of Law Examiners, decided Monday by Magistrate Judge Jill McCook (E.D. Tenn.) (to learn more about the case itself, see the Complaint):
Parties desiring to proceed using a pseudonym have a "heavy burden." … Plaintiff's privacy interests do not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings in this case… Plaintiff asserts that the litigation reveals information of the utmost intimacy, including his mental and physical health in confidential records, accusations against his character, and his acrimonious divorce.
Plaintiff seeks to protect his name from public disclosure for fear of embarrassment and harm to his reputation in the community…. [B]ut "Plaintiff has not advanced any facts or circumstances that distinguish [this] case from routine discrimination cases alleging the same or similar medical conditions that plaintiff claims, nor has [Plaintiff] indicated why the confidentiality of [Plaintiff's] medical information cannot be maintained through a standard protective order." Plaintiff also states that this lawsuit reveals accusations regarding his character and his acrimonious divorce, but he likewise fails to explain how these subjects involve information of the utmost privacy that cannot be protected through a protective order.
Several courts have explained that information of the utmost privacy concern "matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, such as birth control, abortion, homosexuality or the welfare rights of illegitimate children or abandoned families." The subjects Plaintiff sets forth in his motion do not fall within any of those identified categories.
