"A Lawsuit Showing up in Future Educational or Employment Screenings" "Is not an Adequate Justification for Proceeding Anonymously"

From Judge Robert Chambers (S.D. W. Va.) Friday in Roe v. Gozal; plaintiffs are suing a medical school dean for allegedly retaliating against them as MD/PhD students because of his conflict with their father, who had been a rival candidate for dean:

Federal courts disfavor pseudonymous litigation. Such litigation “‘undermines the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings’ because ‘the public has an interest in knowing the names of litigants, and disclosing the parties’ identities furthers openness of judicial proceedings.’” “Nevertheless, district courts may, in their discretion, allow pseudonymous litigation because ‘privacy or confidentiality concerns are sometimes sufficiently critical that parties or witnesses should be allowed this rare dispensation.’” …

[T]he types of personal intimate information justifying anonymity for litigating parties have typically involved such intimate personal matters as birth control, abortion, homosexuality, or the welfare rights of illegitimate children or abandoned families.” The subject of Plaintiff’s suit—Defendant David Gozal’s alleged retaliation against Plaintiffs—is not nearly as sensitive….

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have a credible fear of retaliation. A letter they attached to their Reply supports their claim that Mr. Gozal retaliates against critics and whistleblowers through his control of Marshall faculty. [The letter appears to be from physician assistant students at the medical school. -EV]

But the Court is not persuaded that anonymity would protect Plaintiffs from such retaliation. Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes several details about Plaintiffs’ father. See ECF No. 1, Compl. (“The Students’ father had served at Marshall’s Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine for more than twelve years.”); id. (["]His signature achievement was the COBRE (Center of Biomedical Research Excellence) grant, awarded by the NIH. At Marshall, the COBRE grant supported obesity-related biomedical research ….”); id. (stating Plaintiffs’ father was Marshall’s “Vice Dean for Research, Vice Dean for Graduate Education, and Chair of the Department of Clinical and Translational Sciences.”). This information makes it easy to identify Plaintiffs’ father through an internet search. For a Marshall student or faculty member, from whom Plaintiffs fear retaliation, identifying Plaintiffs would therefore be straightforward.

Since Plaintiffs’ identities are already discernable, proceeding anonymously would confer minimal protection. Further, Plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that many Marshall faculty and students are already aware of the dispute between Plaintiffs and the medical-school administration.

Plaintiffs argue that, even if a “determined reader” can identify Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs still have an interest in keeping this litigation out of “background checks, residency application searches, and employer screenings.” But a lawsuit showing up in future educational or employment screenings is part of the “annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation.” Such annoyance is not an adequate justification for proceeding anonymously….

The Court [also] agrees it would be “unfair to force Dean Gozal to defend himself publicly, while allowing Plaintiffs ‘to hide behind a shield of anonymity ….’” … “[I]t is a matter of ‘basic fairness’ that a private-party defendant’s accusers participate in the suit under their real names.” …

J. Ben Shepard and Michael J. Farrell (Farrell & Farrell PLLC) represent Gozal.

The post “A Lawsuit Showing up in Future Educational or Employment Screenings” “Is not an Adequate Justification for Proceeding Anonymously” appeared first on Reason.com.