# Doe 1 v. Bedford City School District

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · June 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10370973

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** June 17, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10370973

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

:
JANE DOE 1 ET AL., : CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00059
:
Plaintiffs, :
: ORDER & OPINON
v. : [Resolving Doc. 14]
:
BEDFORD CITY SCHOOL :
DISTRICT BOARD OF :
EDUCATION ET AL., :
:
Defendants.

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

In this case concerning a high school teacher-coach who was convicted of sexually
assaulting a then-15-year-old high school student, Plaintiffs move to litigate under
pseudonym.1 Defendants did not oppose the motion.
Although a complaint generally must state the names of all parties, the Sixth Circuit
has held that plaintiffs may be excused from this requirement when their “privacy interests
substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.”2 In conducting that
inquiry, courts examine the following factors:
(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge
governmental activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the
plaintiffs to disclose information “of the utmost intimacy”; (3) whether the
litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an intention to violate the law,
thereby risking criminal prosecution; and (4) whether the plaintiffs are
children.3

1 Doc. 14. The assault occurred in 2018. Doc. 1.
2 , 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004).
3 (quoting 653 F.2d 180, 185–86 (5th Cir.1981)).
The Court finds that the factors do not support filing under pseudonym. While the
first two factors weigh in favor of Plaintiff’s position, courts have determined that “the
potential for embarrassment or public humiliation does not, without more, justify a request

for anonymity.”4 And, the third and fourth factors go against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff
was a minor when the teacher-coach assaulted her, Plaintiff is no longer a minor, and “the
concern that courts display for children of a tender age and their vulnerable status does not
currently apply to [plaintiff].”5
According, the Court DENIES the motion to litigate under pseudonym and ORDERS
Plaintiff to re-file the complaint consistent with this Order and Opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2022
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 , 21-cv-00272, 2021 WL 2651188, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. June 28, 2021) (quoting
, 20-cv-5997, 2020 WL 7321377, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2020)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10370973. Public record. Not legal advice.