The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:24-CV-664-FL
M.B., by and through her parents and )
guardians, D.B. and R.B., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
TRIANGLE MATH AND SCIENCE )
ACADEMY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, )
ORDER
BUNYAMIN KARADUMAN, ERAY )
IDILL, JENNIFER GREENE, TIMOTHY )
SCRANTON, EBONI MAYNARD, )
JOANNA BETTS, BRANDIE HELMER, )
LATRESA GRANTHAM, GREG )
CARPENTER, MIHAELA RAYNOR, )
NORA CATES, MEREDITH PFIFFER, )
)
Defendants. )
This matter is before the court upon plaintiffs’ motion to proceed via pseudonym (DE 2).
For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
In assessing whether to permit a party to proceed by pseudonym, the court considers five
factors: 1) whether the justification asserted is merely to avoid the annoyance that may attend
litigation, or is to preserve sensitive privacy interests, 2) whether identification poses a risk of
retaliatory harm to the requesting party or to innocent nonparties, 3) the ages of the persons whose
privacy interests are sought to be protected, 4) whether the action is against a governmental or
private party, and 5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an anonymous
action against it to proceed. Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th 206, 211 (4th Cir. 2023).
In this case, all factors but one either favor the motion or are inapplicable. The first factor
favors the motion because plaintiffs’ motion represents that they seek to preserve the privacy of a
minor. The second factor appears inapplicable on the facts presented to the court, at least at this
juncture. The third factor supports the motion; plaintiff M.B. is a minor, and the court agrees with
plaintiffs that the benefit in allowing M.B. to proceed through a pseudonym would be lost were
M.B.’s parents required to use their full names on the docket, thereby permitting easy identification
of M.B. The fourth factor weighs against the motion because the suit is against a private entity
and several private individuals, and so fairness generally supports the open naming of an accuser
against a private party. See Doe, 85 F.4th at 215. However, this concern is at least somewhat
neutralized by the final factor, as plaintiffs represent that they will disclose their identities and full
names to defendants and defendants’ counsel. (Mot. Pseudonym (DE 2) 1). After weighing these
five factors, the court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the motion should be granted.
In addition to plaintiffs’ motion, the court must address violations of this court’s Local
Civil Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, plaintiffs failed to comply with the
local rule requiring the filing of a proposed order with an unopposed motion. See Local Civ. R.
7.1(b)(3). The court will excuse this deficiency, but will not extend the same leniency again.
Similarly, plaintiffs failed to provide a supporting memorandum of law in support of their motion.
See Local Civil R. 7.1(e). The court will, again, excuse this deficiency in this instance but will not
do so again. Finally, plaintiffs’ complaint contains information subject to privacy protection under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). The Clerk of Court has accordingly placed the complaint
under temporary seal, currently set to expire November 29, 2024, which will waive such
protections, if plaintiffs’ counsel does not file a redacted copy of the complaint and a motion to
seal the original complaint by that date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h). In the exercise of its discretion,
the court will extend the time period in which to take these steps to December 3, 2024, and in this
isolated instance relieve plaintiffs of need to file companion motion as the clerk directed.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion to proceed by pseudonym (DE 2) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a redacted copy of their complaint by December 3, 2024, if
plaintiffs wish to preserve the protections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. The clerk is
DIRECTED to maintain plaintiffs’ complaint (DE 1, 1-1) under seal until directed differently by
this court. Plaintiffs’ attention to the court’s Local Civil Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure going forward is required.
SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of November, 2024.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge