From Doe v. Norwich University, decided last week by Washington County (Vermont) Superior Court Judge Daniel Richardson:
[Plaintiff seeks permission] to proceed in this case under [a] pseudonym …. She also seeks:
[3.] Entry of a permanent redaction/sealing order for:
- Plaintiff's home address and location data;
- Plaintiff's children's identifying information: names, ages, schools, and activities;
- Plaintiff's private medical/counseling details;
- Plaintiff's former campus/classroom offices, schedules, extensions, and job identifiers not germane to adjudication;
- Exhibits containing any of the foregoing.
[4.] Entry of a Protective order under V.R.C.P. 26(c) prohibiting disclosure or use sealed/confidential materials beyond this litigation.
In short, she proposes to litigate this case as a completely unidentified plaintiff against named defendants, who in addition will be subject to substantial limits on their free speech rights. She asserts in her motions and a supporting affidavit that doing so will avoid "[h]assessment [sic], doxxing, embarrassment, and professional repercussions" as well as "[i]rreparable emotional harm and exposure of sensitive facts to her minor children and their peers via internet/social media search." She asserts without analysis that there is no legitimate public interest in her identity….
