Doe v. Lonestar IT Solutions, LLC

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: April 24, 2023
• Docket: 6:23-cv-00575
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-575-RBD-RMN LONESTAR IT SOLUTIONS, LLC; and TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER This cause is before Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Process on Defendant by Email (Dkt. 13). Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter using a pseudonym. She has not disclosed her identity to the Court or sought leave to proceed in that way. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that, “[e]very pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of complaint must name all the parties; the title of the other pleadings, after naming the party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Although Rule 10(a)’s inclusion of the mandative word, “must,” would yield an all-out ban on any party seeking to proceed with a pseudonym, courts have permitted pseudonymous litigation in limited circumstances. It is Plaintiff’s burden to show why, under the factors arrayed in Southern Methodist University

Association of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979), and further expounded upon by the Eleventh Circuit in later opinions, the Court should grant her leave to proceed under a pseudonym. See, e.g., Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011) (setting

forth factors for district courts to weigh when deciding a motion to proceed under pseudonym). Plaintiff has not sought leave to proceed under a pseudonym. She must do so before seeking other relief from the Court.

Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Process on Defendant by Email (Dkt. 13) is DENIED without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a Motion for Leave to Proceed

Under Pseudonym if she chooses to prosecute her claims in that manner. To facilitate the Court’s consideration of that issue, Plaintiff shall support any such motion with a declaration that establishes the harm that she believes she will suffer if her

identity is revealed and any other information she deems relevant to these proceedings; and 3. Counsel is reminded that the Local Rules of this Court do not permit a party to submit a proposed order. See Local Rule 3.01(f). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 24, 2023.

adhe a C an ROBERT M. NORWAY United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

3.