Alleged Rape Victim Can’t Litigate Against Sean Combs (P. Diddy) Pseudonymously …
From yesterday’s decision in Doe v. Combs by Judge Lewis Liman (S.D.N.Y.) (for more on the split among the Doe v. Combs judges on this, see this post; for more on the split among federal judges generally on pseudonymity in lawsuits alleging sexual assault, see PDF pp. 78-85 of this article):
Plaintiff alleges that nearly 30 years ago, in or around June 1995, she was raped by Combs at a party at Elks Plaza in New York City…. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that the title of a complaint name all the parties to a litigation. This requirement “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly.” “[W]hen determining whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant.” “The people have a right to know who is using their courts.” … The presumption is that a plaintiff will disclose her identity. “[P]seudonyms are the exception and not the rule, and in order to receive the protections of anonymity, a party must make a case rebutting that presumption.” …
[One] factor, whether the litigation involves matters of a sensitive or personal nature, “favors the plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym.” … “Allegations of sexual assault are ‘paradigmatic example[s]’ of highly sensitive and personal claims'” …. “However, allegations of sexual assault, by themselves, are not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.” … “A claim by an adult plaintiff to have been the victim of sexual abuse and to have suffered physical or psychological damage as a result, accompanied by sufficient facts to support that claim, is not enough to entitle a plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Were it otherwise, virtually all claims of adult sexual assaults would ipso facto proceed anonymously.” …
[As to the risk of physical or mental harm, as opposed to privacy harm,] “[c]ourts in this District have held that speculative claims of physical or mental harms are insufficient to bolster a request for anonymity.” Rather, “[o]vercoming the presumption of openness requ
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
