from Doe v. St. Lawrence UniversityThe ruling was handed down by Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart (NDNY) earlier this month and has been appealed to a district judge.
In 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant Morales were both employed as professors at SLU. Plaintiff alleges that on April 12, 2022, he attended an off-campus meeting at Morales’ home “to discuss future courses that Morales would teach.” [Plaintiff] The sociology degree will also be used to fulfill requirements for a major or minor in public health.” That night, the plaintiff alleges, Morales drugged her and brutally raped her… It is unclear whether SLU fired Morales, but Morales “[s]Since leaving SLU [he has] I couldn’t get a teaching job at any level.”
Courts are divided on whether plaintiffs alleging rape should be allowed to pursue their cases anonymously. Anonymous Proceedings), and the magistrates said,[a]Sexual assault accusations are a “classic example”[s]”Given the highly sensitive and personal nature of the allegations, I would prefer that the plaintiffs use pseudonyms,” he said. But he noted that “an allegation of sexual assault alone is not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym,” and concluded that pseudonymization here should not be permitted.
Here, Plaintiff does not identify the specific harms that would result from publicly revealing her identity. She alleges generally, without medical support, that “the experiences described in the Complaint are severely traumatic and, if those experiences were to be recounted in public, would likely cause Plaintiff further trauma.” Plaintiff also states that “she is currently undergoing extensive mental health treatment and would suffer significant harm if forced to publicly reveal her identity.” This conclusory statement, without medical support, is not a basis for allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously in this lawsuit.
Similarly, [another] The element “questioning the status of Plaintiff’s confidentiality in the litigation” does not support Plaintiff’s request for anonymity. [risk of harm] because “[i]”Where plaintiff’s confidentiality is not maintained throughout the proceedings, the risk of harm is lower if the plaintiff is not permitted to proceed under a pseudonym.” Some courts have suggested that “where a plaintiff’s identity has previously been disclosed in a judicial or administrative proceeding, a request to proceed anonymously should be denied.”
Here, Plaintiff … alleges that she would be harmed if her identity became public knowledge, but “cites no evidence to support any fear of harm from the public.” However, Plaintiff’s “past conduct:[er] The record reveals that Plaintiff had previously posted about the assault on Facebook twice, privately messaged individual students, and distributed flyers about the assault on the SLU campus. There is no “suggestion that any of these disclosures caused Plaintiff further trauma, and even if they did not, it is unclear why further disclosures would have produced a different outcome.” Plaintiff also does not claim that he “received assurances of confidentiality” from those to whom he disclosed information.
The court also noted the unfairness of allowing plaintiffs in private defamation suits to proceed anonymously.
Defendant Morales, the subject of this lawsuit, is clearly a private citizen. Given the very serious allegations made by Plaintiffs, Defendant Morales “has a substantial interest in maintaining” [his] A good name and reputation.”…
“…” [T]The public interest in protecting victims of sexual assault is not the only interest at stake here. There is also a public interest in defendants being able to publicly confront their accusers, and this right would be undermined by the anonymity of the complainant.”…
Courts have found that there is prejudice against a defendant when the plaintiff defends … while the defendant is required to defend himself publicly before the jury.[s] Moreover, when the allegations are of a highly sensitive and personal nature, as in this case, there is the potential for harm not only to the plaintiff but also to the defendant, Morales. look Anonymous vs. Simon (SDNY 2014) (“Plaintiff’s allegations and public comments embarrass Defendant and subject it to the same stigma as Plaintiff.”)….
Defendant Morales argues that he has already suffered serious reputational damage as a result of the litigation and that he would continue to suffer harm if the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed anonymously. He also argues that keeping the plaintiffs’ names secret “could discourage potential witnesses from coming forward and could impede discovery.” The Court agrees.
The plaintiff is “taxed”[d] Serious suspicions[,] ‘put [her] When she commenced this suit, she argued that “credibility is an issue.” Thus, allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously would put the defendant at a significant disadvantage at every stage of the litigation. Indeed, “the plaintiff’s anonymity would make it more difficult to obtain witness or witness testimony, the defendant’s [c]This will weaken the defendants’ leverage in settlement negotiations and prevent them from fully and properly cross-examining the plaintiffs.”
Finally, the Court noted that, as in other cases where factual rather than purely legal issues are at issue, “the public has a vested interest in knowing the facts underlying the litigation, including the identities of the parties to the litigation.”
Andrew Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP represents Morales.
