Doe v. Steen

E.D. Missouri

Doe v. Steen

DecidedOctober 22, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-00930

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Doe v. Steen, (E.D. Mo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Jane Doe, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00930 MTS ) Jeremy Steen, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym, Doc. [2]. No Defendant filed any opposition to the Motion. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the Motion. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that complaints “must name all the parties.” Nevertheless, district courts have discretion to “permit a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.” W.G.A. v. Priority Pharm., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D. Mo. 1999); cf. Doe v. Univ. of Ark., 713 F. App’x 525, 526 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to file suit under a pseudonym). Typically, when a plaintiff commences an action in federal court, he or she “invites public scrutiny of the dispute and the proceeding.” In re Ashley Madison Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 2669, 2016 WL 1366616, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 6, 2016) (quoting Luckett v. Beaudet, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1029 (D. Minn. 1998)). When asked to do so, district courts must weigh the public’s strong interest in open courts and the right to access judicial proceedings with a litigant’s privacy interests. Thus, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff, “‘has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.’” Roe v. St. Louis Univ., No. 4:08-cv-1474 JCH, 2009 WL 910738, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 2009) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992)). The Court concludes that Plaintiff's privacy interest in this matter, given the sexually violent nature of some of the allegations, outweighs the customary presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. See In re Ashley Madison, 2016 WL 1366616, at *3 (‘Courts have generally allowed plaintiffs to litigate under pseudonym in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse and assault because they concern highly sensitive and personal subjects.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym, Doc. [2], is GRANTED. Dated this 22nd day of October, 2020. [ual UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Jane Doe, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00930 MTS ) Jeremy Steen, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym, Doc. [2]. No Defendant filed any opposition to the Motion. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the Motion. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that complaints “must name all the parties.” Nevertheless, district courts have discretion to “permit a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.” W.G.A. v. Priority Pharm., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D. Mo. 1999); cf. Doe v. Univ. of Ark., 713 F. App’x 525, 526 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to file suit under a pseudonym). Typically, when a plaintiff commences an action in federal court, he or she “invites public scrutiny of the dispute and the proceeding.” In re Ashley Madison Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 2669, 2016 WL 1366616, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 6, 2016) (quoting Luckett v. Beaudet, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1029 (D. Minn. 1998)). When asked to do so, district courts must weigh the public’s strong interest in open courts and the right to access judicial proceedings with a litigant’s privacy interests. Thus, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff, “‘has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.’” Roe v. St. Louis Univ., No. 4:08-cv-1474 JCH, 2009 WL 910738, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 2009) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992)). The Court concludes that Plaintiff's privacy interest in this matter, given the sexually violent nature of some of the allegations, outweighs the customary presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. See In re Ashley Madison, 2016 WL 1366616, at *3 (‘Courts have generally allowed plaintiffs to litigate under pseudonym in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse and assault because they concern highly sensitive and personal subjects.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym, Doc. [2], is GRANTED. Dated this 22nd day of October, 2020. [ual UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. Steen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-steen-moed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack