Doe v. Horne

D. Arizona

Doe v. Horne

DecidedMay 23, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00185

StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Horne (Doe v. Horne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Horne, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Helen Doe, et al., No. CV-23-00185-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Thomas C Horne, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym. (Doc. 2.) 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe 17 request leave to proceed using pseudonyms for themselves and their respective parents, 18 Helen Doe and James Doe, and Kate Roe and Robert Roe, to protect their identities from 19 public disclosure. Plaintiffs do not object to revealing their identities to Defendants under 20 an appropriate protective order. (Id. at 11.) Defendant The Gregory School does not oppose 21 the Motion. (Doc. 23.) No other defendants have responded and the time for doing so has 22 expired. 23 Having reviewed the Motion and accompanying declarations in support, (Docs. 2, 24 4–9), the Court finds that Plaintiffs reasonably fear severe harm in the form of lost privacy, 25 discrimination, and harassment if their names and gender identities are publicly disclosed 26 because they and their families are likely to face greater threats of retaliation than the 27 typical plaintiffs in civil litigation. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 28 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice 1 || to Defendants and is in the public interest. Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944, 945 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 Thus, there being no opposition and good cause appearing, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym (Doc. 2) is 4|| GRANTED. Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe, and their parents and next friends, Helen 5 || Doe, James Doe, Kate Roe, and Robert Roe, may proceed using pseudonyms in this matter. 6 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2023. 7 8 *

10 □ Honorable J cml 7; United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Helen Doe, et al., No. CV-23-00185-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Thomas C Horne, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym. (Doc. 2.) 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe 17 request leave to proceed using pseudonyms for themselves and their respective parents, 18 Helen Doe and James Doe, and Kate Roe and Robert Roe, to protect their identities from 19 public disclosure. Plaintiffs do not object to revealing their identities to Defendants under 20 an appropriate protective order. (Id. at 11.) Defendant The Gregory School does not oppose 21 the Motion. (Doc. 23.) No other defendants have responded and the time for doing so has 22 expired. 23 Having reviewed the Motion and accompanying declarations in support, (Docs. 2, 24 4–9), the Court finds that Plaintiffs reasonably fear severe harm in the form of lost privacy, 25 discrimination, and harassment if their names and gender identities are publicly disclosed 26 because they and their families are likely to face greater threats of retaliation than the 27 typical plaintiffs in civil litigation. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 28 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice 1 || to Defendants and is in the public interest. Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944, 945 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 Thus, there being no opposition and good cause appearing, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym (Doc. 2) is 4|| GRANTED. Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe, and their parents and next friends, Helen 5 || Doe, James Doe, Kate Roe, and Robert Roe, may proceed using pseudonyms in this matter. 6 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2023. 7 8 *

10 □ Honorable J cml 7; United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. Horne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-horne-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack