Doe v. Teays Valley Local School Board of Education

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JANE DOE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action 2:23-cv-02704

Judge Edmund A. Sargus

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

TEAYS VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL

BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permission to Proceed Under

Pseudonym. (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of her son, John Doe, initiated the present

action by filing a Complaint on August 23, 2023. (Doc. 1). In short, Plaintiffs allege that Teays

Valley school officials disregarded the grooming, sexual harassment, and rape of minor Plaintiff,

John Doe. (Id., ¶ 1). Plaintiffs bring the present Motion to proceed anonymously throughout this

litigation. (Doc. 2). Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion, and it is therefore ripe for

consideration.

II. STANDARD

Generally, a complaint must state the names of all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Yet,

the Court “may excuse [parties] from identifying themselves in certain circumstances.” Doe v.

Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). “In exercising its discretion, a court must balance the

public’s common law right of access to court proceedings against the interests of litigants in

nondisclosure.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:15-CV-2519, 2015 WL 12698036, at *1 (S.D.

Ohio Aug. 26, 2015) (citing In re Polemar Constr. Ltd. P’ship, 23 F. App’x. 423, 425 (6th Cir.

2001). To determine whether a party’s privacy interests outweigh the presumption in favor of

openness, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has identified factors to

consider, including:

(1) whether the [party] seeking anonymity [is] suing to challenge governmental

activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the [party] to disclose

information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; (3) whether the litigation compels [a party]

to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and

(4) whether the [party is a child].

Porter, 370 F.3d at 560 (citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1981)).

III. DISCUSSION

According to Plaintiffs, John Doe has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the

presumption of disclosure. (Doc. 2). And, by extension, “as the mother of John Doe, the disclosure

of Jane Doe’s identity will compromise the privacy of John Doe.” (Id. at 2). The Court agrees.

Under the first Porter factor, this suit challenges governmental activity. In the Complaint,

Plaintiffs name the Teays Valley Board of Education as the principal Defendant. (See Doc. 1).

The application of the second factor—whether this litigation will disclose information of

the utmost intimacy—also favors Plaintiffs’ request. This factor is typically invoked in cases

involving sexual assault. Nationally, courts have routinely found that the privacy interests of

alleged sexual assault victims outweigh the presumption in favor of openness. See Doe v. Blue

Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[F]ictitious names

are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of . . . rape victims, and other particularly

vulnerable parties or witnesses.”); K.S. v. Detroit Pub. Sch., No. 14-12214, 2015 WL 13358204,

at *3 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2015) (allowing alleged sexual assault victim to proceed anonymously).

According to Plaintiffs, given the nature of their claims, John Doe “will be forced to

discuss details involving multiple instances of [one of the Defendants] grooming him, engaging in

sexually charged conduct towards him, and raping him.” (Doc. 2 at 6). The Court agrees that the

litigation implicates information of the utmost intimacy.

Finally, John Doe is a minor. (Id. at 2). This is another compelling reason to allow

Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. Doe v. Mechanicsburg Sch. Bd. of Educ., 518 F. Supp. 3d

1024, 1027 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (“Courts frequently grant protective orders to minors who challenge

governmental conduct.”). Given the weight of the factors, the balance of the litigants’ interests in

nondisclosure outweighs the public’s right to access court proceedings.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permission to Proceed Under Pseudonym

(Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

Date: October 3, 2023 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE