322 F.R.D. 456
M.D. La.2017Background
- Plaintiff, a police officer injured during a July 2016 demonstration, filed suit and moved for leave to proceed anonymously as "John Doe."
- Defendant DeRay Mckesson opposed the motion; the Court held oral argument and received briefing from both sides.
- Plaintiff argued anonymity was needed because revealing his identity could expose him to additional violence given his public role as an officer and recent incidents involving attacks on police.
- Plaintiff cited several public incidents of violence against police (Tennessee highway shooting, Dallas attack, Portland rally statements, Baton Rouge ambush) to support fear of retaliation.
- Plaintiff conceded at oral argument he has received no particularized threats tied to this lawsuit; his fear was based on generalized risks faced by police.
- The Court applied the Fifth Circuit framework for anonymous-party suits and concluded Plaintiff failed to show a privacy interest outweighing the presumption of open judicial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may proceed anonymously under Rule 10(a) | Anonymity is necessary because revealing identity could subject him to violence due to his public police role | Plaintiff must identify himself; anonymity is disfavored absent strong, particularized reasons | Denied — plaintiff must disclose identity |
| Whether Fifth Circuit factors for anonymity apply (challenge to gov't activity; intimate matters; risk of admission of illegal conduct) | Plaintiff asserted risk of violence warrants anonymity | Defendant argued none of the Stegall factors apply here | Held none apply; plaintiff not challenging government and no intimate or criminal admission issues |
| Whether generalized threats to police justify anonymity | Cited public incidents of violence against officers as creating substantial risk | Defendant argued those incidents are generalized and unrelated to this specific suit | Court held generalized risk insufficient; no particularized threats tied to the lawsuit |
| Whether plaintiff showed threatened retaliation generated by this case | Plaintiff argued filing could increase risk because of public job and protest context | Defendant disputed causation and particularized nexus to filing | Court found no evidence that suit generated threats or increased risk for this plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992) (explains general rule that parties must be identified and anonymity is rare)
- Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (identifies factors weighing for anonymity and emphasizes fact-sensitive inquiry)
- S. Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979) (discusses harm to private parties’ reputations when identity is concealed)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (illustrative of intimate personal matters that have supported anonymity)
- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (another example of cases addressing sensitive personal matters)
- Doe v. Dep’t of Transp., FAA, 412 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1969) (cited for prior anonymity jurisprudence involving sensitive matters)
Order: Motion to proceed as John Doe denied.