From Doe v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., decided Monday by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (D. Nev.):
Plaintiff Judy Does work at the Wynn/Encore Salon, and they claim that their employer allowed Steve Wynn to sexually harass them. In their ninety-two page third amended complaint, the Judy Does bring claims against Wynn Resorts Limited and Wynn Las Vegas, LLC for (1) discrimination based on sex; (2) hostile work environment based on sex/sexual harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) false imprisonment; (5) invasion of privacy; and (6) injunctive relief….
[P]laintiffs argue … that they should be allowed to proceed using fictitious names because they will be embarrassed if their identities are revealed. Plaintiffs also argue in their supplement in support of their motion for a protective order that their identities should be protected from Steve Wynn, even though he is likely to be a witness in this case. They also argue that Steve Wynn will sue them for "speaking out" if he learns their identities….
Firmly embedded in the American judicial system is a presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. That is why our court system has a default preference for openness, and parties are allowed to use pseudonyms "in the 'unusual case' when nondisclosure of the party's identity 'is necessary … to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.'"
