In the American legal system, parties are generally expected to participate in their own names, but with several narrow exceptions. One of those exceptions is for certain cases where plaintiffs would have to disclose highly private information about themselves. Courts thus often—but far from always—let plaintiffs proceed pseudonymously when the lawsuit would involve disclosure of alleged sexual assault. (For a list of cases going both ways, see my The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation, 73 Hastings L.J. 1353, 1430-37 (2022).)
In the decision affirmed by the Tenth Circuit in Monday's Luo v. Wang, the lower court had at first allowed plaintiff Luo to proceed pseudonymously, for this very reason: Luo was suing Wang for libel and invasion of privacy based on Wang's statement about a third party's alleged sexual assault of Luo. But the lower court then reconsidered, and denied Luo pseudonymity, because Wang's counsel uncovered evidence of Luo's past litigation:
Mr. Wang pointed to a Jane Doe case Ms. Luo identified in her complaints filed in this action, where she had sued a man for sexual battery and other claims. In other Jane Doe cases, Ms. Luo sued several municipalities and a state for allegedly failing to prosecute two men for separate alleged sexual assaults against her. Mr. Wang, through declarations offered by defense counsel, submitted evidence of Ms. Luo's litigious behavior and discovery abuses in two of her other Jane Doe cases, including her refusal to identify in discovery the other lawsuits she had filed.
In another Jane Doe case, Ms. Luo had persuaded the trial court to allow her to proceed using only her initials, in part, by representing in her motion that the case had gained media attention. In a deposition, Ms. Luo later testified to two additional facts she did not disclose in her motion: (1) the initials she proposed to use did not pertain to her real name but to one or more of her aliases; and (2) the news outlets she claimed had taken an interest had learned of the case from Ms. Luo.
Mr. Wang also submitted evidence that Ms. Luo was subject to a domestic-relations restraining order filed in her real name in state court in Orange County, California. In a decision affirming that order, the court described the underlying dispute:
