A New York based federal judge recently decided that "Jane Doe," one of the women accusing Sean Combs, aka Puff Daddy, P. Diddy and Diddy (let me know if I'm missing any) may not proceed with the suit anonymously. This leaves her with a tough choice – reveal herself publicly or drop the suit. Thus far, the suit remains pending.
Jane Doe is one of many alleged victims (according to Vulture, there are 62 cases currently pending) who have sued Sean Combs for sexual assault. And to avoid confusion, the plaintiff in a separate Jane Doe lawsuit recently dismissed her claim. But that dismissal has nothing to do with this case.
Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure requires that the title to a complaint name all the parties to the litigation. Courts have held that this requirement "serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly."
In ruling on Ms. Doe's motion, the court posed a series of questions designed to balance Ms. Doe's privacy interests against the public's right to know what goes on in a public courtroom. The court's first question was whether the litigation involves a highly sensitive or personal matter. The court noted that the claims did involve a sensitive matter, but noted that "allegations of sexual assault, by themselves, are not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym."
The court's next two questions asked about the harm Ms. Doe could face if her identity was revealed. The court found that Ms. Doe did not satisfy these factors, as her claims of potential physical and mental harms were too speculative. The court found that Ms. Doe's age (she's an adult) mitigated against allowing her to proceed anonymously. The court also noted that because Ms. Doe was not a whistle blower proceeding against the government, her interest in privacy was reduced.
The court found that the sixth factor – the harm to the defendant in allowing Ms. Doe to proceed anonymously -- favored Mr. Combs. As the court noted, "[i]f Plaintiff's name is kept from the public, information about only one side may thus come to light. In particular, 'persons with information about [Plaintiff] or [her] allegations that would be helpful to the defense but were unknown to the defendant might not come forward.'"
The court also noted that the fact that Ms. Doe had consistently maintained confidentiality favored her claim. And it found that the eighth factor, the public interest, was neutral. According to the court, "[t]he public has an interest in knowing who has made an allegation against a public figure for, as the case comes before the Court, it may be that the allegation is untrue. . . . However, '[t]his interest is weighed against the public's competing 'interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes.'" The competing interests cancelled each other out.
The last two factors weighed against Ms. Doe. The case did not involve "purely legal matters" and the court could impose targeted protective orders to guard against disclosure of particularly sensitive matters.
So, was Judge Lewis Liman particularly callous, or a careful jurist? I can see both arguments, but I am a fan of transparency.
