An excerpt from Magistrate Judge Jeffery Frensley’s opinion Friday in Poe v. Lowe (M.D. Tenn.):
In the fall of 2020, Plaintiff Parker Poe enrolled as an undergraduate at Vanderbilt University. Plaintiff took a leave of absence from school in April 2022, during which time he and others anonymously made and shared posts on at least two social media websites concerning Roe. Some of those posts alleged that Roe had sexually assaulted women.
Roe disputed the allegations and filed a lawsuit to uncover the identities of the anonymous posters. Poe was revealed as one of the posters. Roe and members of his family provided this information to Vanderbilt officials who opened an investigation of Poe for apparent violations of several provisions of the Vanderbilt Student Handbook. After a nearly two-month investigation, university officials concluded that Poe had committed three violations of the Student Handbook. Plaintiff was accordingly suspended from school, among other sanctions. Poe’s subsequent appeal of his sanctions was unsuccessful, and his suspension began in April 2023.
Plaintiff filed the present complaint in Tennessee state court in March 2024 against Defendants for their actions in investigating and sanctioning Plaintiff. He contemporaneously filed a motion to proceed pseudonymously, which the state court granted. Defendants removed this action [to federal court] in April 2024 and filed the motion to reconsider shortly thereafter. Plaintiff then filed his amended complaint wherein he made hundreds of references to Roe using Roe’s legal name. The Court granted Roe’s emergency motion to intervene, temporarily sealed the amended complaint, and ordered the parties to confer regarding Roe and Poe’s pseudonymity. After failing to resolve the issue, Roe filed the “Motion to Protect,” seeking to permanently seal the amended complaint and require the use of pseudonyms for references to himself and his family members for the duration of this litigation. Because both motions ask the Court to decide whether parties may proceed under a pseudonym, they will be analyzed together.
The court concluded that it wasn’t bound by the state court order, and went on to decide the pseudonymity question for itself:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that federal lawsuits state the names of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), 17(a)(1). In exceptional cases, courts may allow a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym. To obtain such relief, a plaintiff must show that his “privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.” …
Defendants’ arguments [against allowing Poe to be pseudonymous] are more persuasive…. Plaintiff will not be compelled to disclose information of the utmost intimacy. Courts in this circuit have routinely found that cases involving allegations of sexual assault compel such disclosure and have granted pseudonymity to both victims of sexual assault. Plaintiffs whose claims compel the disclosure of a history of suicidal ideation and self-harm have also been granted pseudonymity. But whether information is of the utmost intimacy should be “construed narrowly” given the preference for open judicial proceedings.
Because Plaintiff’s claims stem from an allegedly flawed student-misconduct investigation, not from allegations of sexual assault, Plaintiff is not compelled to disclose matters of the utmost intimacy. Indeed, Plaintiff is neither the victim nor the accused; he is the accuser. And Plaintiff has failed to identify a single case where a similarly situated accuser has been permitted to proceed pseudonymously. While Plaintiff has disclosed information concerning highly sensitive and personal subjects, “the potential for embarrassment or public humiliation does not, without more, justify a request for anonymity.” …
Poe argued in his state-court motion that if required to reveal his true identity he would “suffer additional mental, emotional, and psychological harm.” In support of that assertion, Poe attached an affidavit from his attorney attesting that disclosure of Poe’s name would “cause further anguish and distress.” Although “psychological harm to the plaintiff is the type of injury that could justify permitting [him] to proceed under a pseudonym, … plaintiffs alleging mental harm in this type of situation must ‘base their allegations … on more than just mere speculation.'” Poe has not provided any evidence for such harm beyond unsupported and conclusory statements. This additional consideration accordingly does not support Poe proceeding by pseudonym.
Plaintiff’s concern for his professional reputation and potential future economic injury is also too speculative and unsupported to permit pseudonymity. Other courts in this circuit have concluded that the potential for scrutiny from “future employers is not sufficient to require the use of pseudonyms.” “[C]oncerns about … economic harm and scrutiny from current or prospective employers do not involve information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; rather, they constitute the type of concerns harbored by other similarly situated” individuals who file lawsuits against universities under their real names. See also D.E. v. John Doe (6th Cir. 2016) (“As for potential negative scrutiny from future employers, [Plaintiff], … forfeited his ability to keep secret his actions … when he sued ….”)….
[And] “keeping [Plaintiff]’s identity confidential while the defendants’ is known … prejudices the … defendants, [and] hinder[s] ‘the judicial interest in accurate fact-finding and fair adjudication.'” Defendants would be at a disadvantage “at all stages of litigation,” having “less leverage in settlement negotiations” and less “ability to fully and adequately cross-examine” Plaintiff, among other hurdles. For these reasons, the Court determines that allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously would unfairly prejudice Defendants.
But the court allows Simon Roe and his family to proceed pseudonymously:
Roe has been accused of sexual assault, a “personal matter ‘of the utmost intimacy.'” He is a third party who is “not responsible for the initiation of the underlying litigation,” and accordingly “possesses a justified expectation of privacy that [his] name … not be revealed to the public.” …
The same is true for Roe’s father and family. They are all third parties who have been thrust into this litigation and deanonymized by Plaintiff’s amendments to his complaint. But none of Roe’s family is accused of sexual assault, and none are compelled to reveal matters of the utmost intimacy. Still, identifying Roe’s family members by their real name would destroy the anonymity afforded to Roe….
And the court therefore allows the amended complaint that names Roe to be permanently sealed: “If the amended complaint is unsealed and made available to the public, Roe’s true identity would be exposed, effectively voiding the Court’s order granting Roe’s request for pseudonymity.”
Lowe, incidentally, is a Vanderbilt professor who issued the decision in Roe’s case; though it rhymes with Poe and Roe, Lowe is her real name.
The post Can Vanderbilt Student Suspended for Alleged False Accusations Sue Vanderbilt Pseudonymously? appeared first on Reason.com.
