Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23194
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Civil rights suit challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy by four juvenile plaintiffs (Does) alleging racial discrimination against Native Hawaiians; plaintiffs sought to proceed anonymously (Doe status).
- District court denied anonymity under a five-factor Advanced Textile balancing test (for adults).
- Panel affirmed denial of anonymity, applying Advanced Textile and not Rule 5.2(a).
- Rule 5.2(a) (effective Dec 1, 2007) requires redacted filings for minors, allowing initials, not Doe anonymity; diverse interpretation followed by majority court.
- Dissent argued panel erred by ignoring Rule 5.2(a) and by misapplying anonymity standards, harming juvenile litigants in racially charged education context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juveniles may proceed anonymously (Doe status) in federal court. | Doe was permissible under Rule 5.2(a). | Panel could deny anonymity under public-interest/publicity concerns. | No; Rule 5.2(a) governs juvenile anonymity and requires protection of identities. |
| Whether Rule 5.2(a) supersedes Advanced Textile for juveniles. | Rule 5.2(a) controls and supports anonymity. | Advanced Textile balancing governs anonymity. | Rule 5.2(a) controls; Advanced Textile not applicable to juvenile anonymity. |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in denying anonymity to Does. | Abuse of discretion occurred by misapplying law and ignoring Rule 5.2(a). | Discretion to weigh public interest and safety threats supported denial. | Yes; district court abused discretion by not applying Rule 5.2(a) and protecting juvenile privacy. |
| Whether the denial should be reconsidered en banc. | En banc review is warranted to correct legal errors governing juvenile anonymity. | Panel's decision should stand; en banc not necessary. | En banc review denied; but the opinion clarifies Rule 5.2(a) governs juvenile anonymity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 470 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc upheld admissions policy; relevance to anonymity context)
- Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010) (subsequent panel on anonymity disallowed; discussed Rule 5.2(a) and abuse of discretion errors)
- Advanced Textile Corp. v. City of Nashville, 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (five-factor balancing test for Doe anonymity (adult context))
- Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (early approval of Doe anonymity on vulnerability of juveniles)
- Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognition of anonymity to protect privacy of vulnerable parties)