Excerpt from Justice Jeffrey Frensley’s opinion on Friday. Poe vs Law (Tennessee M.D.):
In the fall of 2020, Plaintiff Parker Poe enrolled as an undergraduate student at Vanderbilt University. Plaintiffs took a leave of absence from school in April 2022, during which time they anonymously posted and shared information about Roe on at least two social media websites. Some of those posts alleged that Mr. Low had sexually assaulted women.
Mr. Low disputed the allegations and filed a lawsuit to uncover the identity of the anonymous poster. Poe was published as one of the posters. Law and his family provided this information to Vanderbilt University officials, who began an investigation against Poe for allegedly violating several provisions of the Vanderbilt Student Handbook. After a nearly two-month investigation, university officials concluded that Poe committed three violations of the student handbook. In response, the plaintiff received sanctions such as suspension from school. Poe subsequently appealed for sanctions, but was unsuccessful, and his suspension began in April 2023.
Plaintiff filed this complaint in March 2024 in Tennessee state court citing Defendants’ conduct in investigating and sanctioning Plaintiff. He simultaneously filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym, which the state court granted. Defendant deleted this lawsuit [to federal court] He filed a motion for reconsideration in April 2024 and asked for reconsideration shortly thereafter. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, using Roe’s legal name and referring to Roe hundreds of times. The court granted Lo’s emergency motion to intervene, temporarily sealing the amended complaint and ordering the parties to confer with the parties regarding Lo and Poe’s pseudonyms. After failing to resolve the matter, Mr. Lo filed a “motion for protection,” permanently sealing the amended complaint and requiring him to use a pseudonym when referring to himself and his family for the duration of this lawsuit. I asked for something. Both motions ask the court to decide whether the parties can proceed under pseudonyms, so they will be analyzed together.
The court concluded that it was not bound by the state court’s order and continued to decide the pseudonym issue independently.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that federal lawsuits list the names of the parties. FRB. R.Civ. P.10(a), 17(a)(1). In exceptional cases, the court may allow the plaintiff to file a lawsuit under a false name. To obtain such relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate that their “privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial process.” …
Defendants’ claims [against allowing Poe to be pseudonymous] It’s more convincing… Plaintiffs cannot be forced to disclose extremely intimate information. Courts in this circuit have routinely ruled that such disclosures are mandatory in cases involving allegations of sexual assault, granting anonymity to both sexual assault victims. Pseudonyms are also allowed for plaintiffs who request disclosure of a history of suicidal ideation and self-harm. However, given the primacy of open judicial proceedings, whether the information is extremely intimate should be “narrowly construed”.
Plaintiffs cannot be forced to disclose extremely intimate matters because their claims stem from a flawed investigation of student misconduct, not allegations of sexual assault. Indeed, the plaintiff is neither the victim nor the defendant. He is an accuser. And plaintiffs cannot identify a single case in which a similarly situated accuser was allowed to proceed under a false name. Although the plaintiff is disclosing information about a highly sensitive and personal subject, “the potential for embarrassment or public humiliation does not justify a request for anonymity, if no other reason exists.” It’s not something that will change.” …
Poe argued in his state court filing that he would “suffer further mental, emotional and psychological harm” if he were asked to reveal his true identity. To support that claim, Poe attached an attorney’s affidavit proving that disclosure of Poe’s name would “cause further pain and suffering.” “Psychological harm to the plaintiff is the type of injury that may justify permission; [him] “To proceed under a false name…a plaintiff alleging psychological harm in this type of situation must base his claim on ‘more than…mere speculation.'” Poe argues that the unsubstantiated conclusion… has not provided any evidence of such harm other than a statement. does not support Poe filing a lawsuit under a pseudonym.
Concerns about the plaintiff’s professional reputation and possible future financial harm are also too speculative and unsubstantiated to permit a pseudonym. Other courts in this circuit have concluded that “scrutiny from prospective employers is likely.” not enough Request the use of a pseudonym. ” “[C]There may be concerns about financial harm or surveillance from current or future employers, but this does not include “highly intimate” information. Rather, they constitute the kinds of concerns that other similarly situated people have who have filed lawsuits against universities in their real names. See also DE vs. John Doe (6th Circuit, 2016) (“As for the potential for negative monitoring from future employers, [Plaintiff]…when they filed a lawsuit, they were stripped of their ability to keep their actions secret…. ”)….
[And] “storage [Plaintiff]“The identity of the defendant is confidential while he is known”…prejudices the defendant; [and] hinder[s] Defendants would be placed at a disadvantage “at every stage of litigation,” with “reduced leverage in settlement negotiations” and plaintiffs’ “ability to conduct full and appropriate cross-examination.” For these reasons, the court held that allowing plaintiffs to file lawsuits anonymously would cause undue harm to defendants.
But the court has allowed Simon Roe and his family to file the lawsuit anonymously.
Mr Lowe is accused of sexual assault, a “‘very intimate’ personal matter”, but he is a third party “not responsible for initiating the underlying proceedings” and therefore ” have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” [his] The name… will not be disclosed to the public. ”
The same goes for Law’s father and family. They are all third parties involved in this lawsuit and de-identified by the plaintiff’s amended complaint. However, no one in Law’s family has been accused of sexual assault, nor has anyone been forced to reveal extremely intimate details. Still, identifying Law’s family by their real names would destroy the anonymity afforded to Law…
The court therefore allows the amended complaint naming Roe to be permanently sealed. “If the amended complaint is sealed and released to the public, it will reveal Roe’s true identity and effectively invalidate the court’s order granting Roe’s pseudonym request.”
Mr. Lowe, by the way, is a professor at Vanderbilt University, and he ruled on Mr. Lowe’s case. Although it rhymes with Poe and Law, Law is her real name.
