From yesterday's ruling by Judge Jessica Clark (SDNY) Doe v. Combs:
The plaintiff alleges that Combs, Pierre, and a third assailant gang-raped her when she was 17 years old (and while under the influence of drugs and alcohol they supplied). The court recognizes that publicly disclosing Doe's identity to the public could have significant repercussions for her, especially in light of the graphic and disturbing allegations in this case. Although the court does not discount plaintiffs' concerns, anonymity cannot be justified by relying on general and unsubstantiated claims that disclosure would harm plaintiffs. Without more specific assistance, the plaintiff will not be able to overcome her prejudice against the defendant and the public interest factors involved here.
Indeed, similar claims to anonymously proceed with sexual assault lawsuits involving celebrities such as Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein were similarly denied… However, the court will maintain this order in effect until the court determines defendant's pending motion for judgment on pleadings.
The case concerns highly sensitive personal matters, including allegations that the defendants trafficked, drugged and gang-raped Doe. Although the plaintiff is now an adult, he was a minor at the time of the incident, making this case particularly sensitive. (And) other than informing her defendants of her identity, Doe has not publicly disclosed her identity in connection with these allegations.
These factors, while favorable to plaintiff, are not dispositive. for example,, Doe vs. Weinstein (SDNY 2020) (“Courts in this district have explained that an allegation of sexual assault alone is not sufficient to give a plaintiff the right to sue under a false name.”); Rupp vs. Fowler (SDNY 2021) (Denying plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously in a lawsuit involving Kevin Spacey's alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff as a minor). And all of the other factors discussed below work against Plaintiffs' ability to maintain anonymity throughout this litigation…
If a plaintiff asserts that disclosure would harm that person's mental health, the circuit requires corroboration from a medical professional detailing the risks to the plaintiff. The supporting evidence needs to detail how revealing the plaintiff's name will cause harm, especially as opposed to the trauma that may result from reliving the experience through litigation. there is.
Here, Doe fails to identify the specific harm that would be caused by revealing his identity. She just claims, in general terms and without substantiation, that she will suffer from her trauma if her identity is revealed and she becomes the focus of media attention…like Do vs. Skyline Auto.Co., Ltd. (SDNY 2019), “Plaintiff merely foresees common harm, and more is needed to meet her burden.” Her concluding argument is that disclosure It falls short of demonstrating the specific harm she would suffer as a result of…
The mere fact that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the alleged harm is not a sufficient factor in his favor. Here, the plaintiff was a minor at the time the assault allegedly occurred, but is now an adult in his late 30s. She was unable to identify any other relevant vulnerabilities….
(Furthermore) „(f) Fundamental fairness suggests that a defendant is biased when a plaintiff makes a charge under cover of anonymity but must defend it in public. .”
In this case, in the court's view, the most significant disadvantage to the defendant is that the plaintiff's anonymity poses a discovery disadvantage. The plaintiff, who is making serious allegations, „has[her]credibility in question.“ In such situations, when one party is anonymous and the other party is anonymous, a „fact-gathering asymmetry“ occurs. This asymmetry is even more acute in cases involving high-profile public disclosures, since „information about only one side may end up coming to light.“
Plaintiffs' own complaints illustrate how this imbalance plays out. Doe cites previously filed public lawsuits against Combs and Pierre, including a lawsuit against Combs by Kathy. In describing Kathy's case, the complaint alleges that almost immediately after her allegations became public, witnesses with relevant knowledge of Combs came forward to corroborate her claims. Allowing the plaintiff anonymity would impair the defendant's ability to discover relevant information about the plaintiff. This is especially true in cases like this, which happened decades ago, when, as the plaintiffs themselves acknowledge, evidence and witnesses are difficult to find.
Plaintiffs argue that it is in the public interest to protect sexual assault victims from discouraging others from reporting crimes. The court agrees that this is certainly in the public interest. However, this has been „repeatedly rejected by the courts in this region as being in itself a sufficient basis for guaranteeing anonymity.“ Doe v. Telemundo Network Grp. LLC (SDNY 2023).
Moreover, the public's interest in protecting victims of sexual assault is not the only concern involved here. There is also a public interest in allowing defendants to publicly confront their accusers, a right that is undermined by plaintiffs' anonymity. The public also has a legitimate interest in knowing the facts underlying a lawsuit, including the identity of the litigants.
Further, the court was unable to find any case in this circuit with similar claims in which plaintiff's cross-motion for an anonymous hearing was granted, but plaintiff did not point to that case. While the plaintiff is dependent on doe vs black (SDNY 2023) and supports that position, and the cases are easily distinguishable. As the plaintiff's attorney knows, the defendant therein did not object to the allegations and, as a result, pointed out that there was no prejudice to the plaintiff's anonymous filing of the lawsuit. The court granted the motion in its discretion at the commencement of the action, „giving considerable weight to the fact that the defendant did not object to the plaintiff's claim.“ SYeah, Doe vs. Gooding too. (SDNY 2021) (Granting plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously without prejudice to future objections if defendant takes no position in opposition to the complaint). Trooper 1 vs. New York State Police (EDNY 2022). The court will deny a motion here if the defendant vehemently opposes the claim, identifies the prejudice it would suffer as a result, and the plaintiff cannot point to specific damages to overcome these factors. do.
provided, however, that this order shall remain in effect until the court determines the pending judgment motion on the petition. If the court dismisses the case, it will do so for purely legal reasons, and the plaintiff's identity is irrelevant to its decision. Moreover, if the matter were to proceed to discovery, the prejudice to the defendant would be greatest. Accordingly, if this action survives a determination on Defendants' claims, Plaintiff shall pursue this action using her legal name.
Note that courts are divided on all of these issues, including sexual assault cases (as I have detailed) Pseudonym litigation law, especially Appendices 2a and 2b). Some of the other justices will probably agree with this decision, and some will probably disagree.