From today's decision by Judge Rebecca Brady Jennings (W.D. Ky.) in Doe v. Blanche:
"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 [Doe] indicated why the confidentiality of [Doe's] medical information cannot be maintained through a standard protective order." While the Court does not dispute that there remains stigma around this medical condition, it is clear that numerous cases of the same or similar ilk have been prosecuted without the use of a pseudonym [citing several such cases -EV].
Doe asserts that the sensitive information that would necessarily be disclosed in this lawsuit would be particularly personal and subject him to "reputational harm" and "collateral consequences arising from sensitive personal history including prior substance abuse." Yet, Doe fails to explain how these subjects involve information of the utmost privacy that cannot be completely or at least partially protected through a protective order or rise to the level of private information requiring anonymity. 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.
Doe's arguments regarding "a generalized risk of harm and damage to his professional reputation" also do not justify the request for anonymity. As a general rule, judges consistently hold that fears of social embarrassment, humiliation, or damage to one's reputation, "standing alone, are not sufficient to justify permitting a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym."
Similarly, apprehensions about future employment background checks or corporate scrutiny fail to meet the standard of "utmost intimacy." Instead, these financial risks "constitute the type of concerns harbored by other similarly situated employees who file retaliation lawsuits under their real names."
Court decisions are all over the map on whether someone can sue pseudonymously to avoid disclosure of various mental conditions, see The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation pp. 1437-41 (Appendices 3a & 3b).
The post Plaintiff's Tourette's Syndrome Doesn't Justify Pseudonymity appeared first on Reason Magazine.
