Doe v. Spring Hill College ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-00340-JB-N ) SPRING HILL COLLEGE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This ma)er is before the Court on Plain5ff John Doe’s Mo5on to Proceed with Fic55ous Name. (Doc. 12). The Court conducted a hearing, at which counsel for Plain5ff and Defendants Spring Hill College, Craig McVey and William Robert Tate appeared and argued. Upon due considera5on of the filings and the oral arguments of the par5es, and for the reasons set out herein, the Court concludes that the Mo5on to Proceed with Fic55ous Name is DENIED. DISCUSSION Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “complaint must name all the par5es.” Based on this rule, “par5es to a lawsuit must iden5fy themselves in their respec5ve pleadings.” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992). “This rule serves more than administra5ve convenience. It protects the public’s legi5mate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the iden55es of the par5es.” Plain/ff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011). A court may permit a plain5ff to proceed anonymously only in an excep5onal case. A.W. v. Tuscaloosa City Sch. Bd. of Educ., 744 Fed. App’x. 668, 670 (11th Cir. 2018). “The ul5mate test for permi‘ng a plain5ff to proceed anonymously is whether the plain5ff has a substan5al privacy right which outweighs the ‘customary and cons5tu5onally-embedded presump5on of openness in judicial proceedings.’” Id. (ci5ng Frank, 951 F.2d at 323 (quo5ng Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. Aug. 1981))). “Whether a party's right to privacy outweighs the presump5on of openness is a ‘totality-of-the-circumstances ques5on.’” Doe v. Neverson, 820 F. App'x 984, 986 (11th Cir. 2020) (quo5ng In re Chiquita Brands Int'l Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1247 n.5 (11th Cir. 2020)). Courts consider six different factors when evalua5ng whether to let a plain5ff proceed to trial anonymously. Plain/ff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011). Plain5ff contends two of those six factors apply in this case: (1) the Plain5ff will be required to disclose ma)ers of the “utmost in5macy,” and (2) the Plain5ff will suffer harm if he were to proceed in his own name. (Doc. 20). First, the Court will address whether Plain5ff will be required to disclose ma)ers of the “utmost in5macy.” Then, the Court will turn to whether Plain5ff will suffer harm if his name was to be disclosed to the public. A. Ma)ers of the Utmost In5macy Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have provided that “informa5on of the utmost in5macy” applies to cases involving issues such as abor5on, prayer and personal religious beliefs. See Roe v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 685 (11th Cir. 2001), Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. Further, “Courts have permi)ed plain5ffs to proceed anonymously in cases involving mental illness, homosexuality, and transsexuality” because “the social s5gma a)ached to the plain5ff’s disclosure was found to be enough to overcome the presump5on of openness in court proceedings.” Neverson, 820 Fed. Appx. 984 (quo5ng Frank, 951 F. 2d at 324). However, Courts have denied the protec5on of anonymity in cases where plain5ffs have alleged sexual assault, even when revealing the plain5ff’s iden5ty may cause them to “suffer some personal embarrassment.” See Frank, 951 F.2d at 324, and Doe v. Sheely, 781 F. App’x 972, 974 (11th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019). Plain5ff claims the nature of his allega5ons would be sufficient to bring harm and shame to him and his family because of his religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adven5st. (Doc. 20). Plain5ff states he will be required to discuss the alleged homosexual acts which were commi)ed against him and sexually based communica5ons all of which he contends are against his religious beliefs and qualify as ma)ers of the “utmost in5macy.” (Doc. 20). The Court disagrees. While some courts have permi)ed plain5ffs to proceed anonymously in cases involving the homosexuality of the plain5ff because of the “social s5gma” surrounding such disclosures here, Plain5ff has not claimed that he is a homosexual. Instead, he has taken the posi5on that the “homosexual acts” he alleges in his complaint are enough for the “social s5gma” reasoning to apply. It is not. The homosexual acts that the Plain5ff alleges were commi)ed against him are the basis of his assault allega5ons and courts have ohen denied the protec5on of anonymity in cases where plain5ffs have alleged sexual assault. See Doe v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-1262-TWT-CCH, 2007 WL 9706836 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2007). Unless the Plain5ff is claiming he is homosexual (which he has not done), Plain5ff’s true sexual orienta5on is not at issue in this case. The disclosure of the ma)ers alleged in the Complaint do not qualify as ma)ers of the “utmost in5macy.” B. Threat of Physical Harm The Court now turns to Plain5ff’s second argument as to why he should be allowed to proceed anonymously. Plain5ff contends that he is vulnerable to the harms of disclosure given he is s5ll a student at Spring Hill College and his iden5fica5on poses a risk of retalia5on and mental or physical harm. (Doc. 20). Plain5ff further argued that if not permi)ed to proceed anonymously, there is a risk of physical harm to Plain5ff by members of the community at large by many groups of protestors including those favoring homosexuality and those opposing it. (Doc. 20). In Doe v. Stegal, the court allowed the plain5ffs to proceed under a pseudonym in their suit challenging prayer in school, explaining that there was evidence that the plain5ffs “may expect extensive harassment and perhaps even violent reprisals if their iden55es [were] disclosed[.]” 653 F.2d at 186. That evidence consisted of local newspaper reports of public reac5on to the lawsuit voiced at a school board mee5ng, which included numerous and specific threats directed towards the plain5ffs. Id. at 182, n.6 and 186. The record evidence in Stegal indicated plain5ffs “may expect extensive harassment and perhaps even violent reprisals.” Id. at 182. There is no such evidence in the instant record. The court’s holding in Stegal was also based on the fact that the plain5ffs were children. Id. In this case, Plain5ff cites two ar5cles regarding An5-LGBTQ protests, one specific to California and one generally na5onwide, but has not provided any evidence of those protests occurring in Alabama or that he is even part of the LGBTQ community and would be targeted by any sort of protests were they to happen. “The threat of hos5le public reac5on to a lawsuit, standing alone, will only with great rarity warrant public anonymity.” Id. at 186. Plain5ff has not provided any specific instances of threats or harassment from Defendants. He has not iden5fied any real danger or physical harm he may face if he is not allowed to proceed anonymously. There is no evidence to support that Plain5ff has been threatened with physical harm by the wider general public.1 Humilia5on or embarrassment are not the types of harm this Court contemplates when evalua5ng real physical harm. Furthermore, the persons most directly affected by, or interested in, Plain5ff’s allega5ons already know Plain5ff’s iden5ty. Allowing Plain5ff to proceed anonymously would not eliminate any perceived harm the Plain5ff wrongly believes he faces from the Defendants. C. Totality of the Circumstances As previously stated, “[w]hether a party's right to privacy outweighs the presump5on of openness is a ‘totality-of-the-circumstances ques5on.’” Doe v. Neverson, 820 F. App'x 984, 986 (11th Cir. 2020) (quo5ng In re Chiquita Brands Int'l Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1247 n.5 (11th Cir. July 16, 2020)). The presence of one factor is not disposi5ve. Frank, 951 F. 2d at 323. While the Court sympathizes with Plain5ff’s understandable concerns for privacy and fear of embarrassment and shame due to his religious beliefs, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Plain5ff has demonstrated no reason why he has a privacy interest strong enough to override the judicial presump5on of openness. 1 A#er briefing was closed and the ma5er taken under submission by the Court, Plain