E.M. v. SHADY GROVE REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCE CENTER P.C.
1:24-cv-00956
D.D.C.Apr 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiff E.M. worked with defendant Shady Grove Reproductive Science Center starting in 2012 to freeze her eggs, seeking to have biological children.
- The relationship deteriorated, leading to a 2019 lawsuit over the Center's refusal to treat her and subsequent treatment-related disputes.
- After transferring her care to a new provider, additional disputes arose regarding the transport and handling of her frozen eggs and related quality control processes.
- E.M. filed a second lawsuit in April 2024 seeking damages for, among other claims, conversion, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Due to highly sensitive medical and personal information in the complaints, E.M. moved to proceed under a pseudonym to protect her and a non-party's privacy.
- The court's memorandum opinion addresses only the motion to proceed pseudonymously at this stage in the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym | Sensitive medical/personal info merits privacy protection | Not discussed in this order | Granted; privacy concerns outweigh public’s interest in identity |
| Risk of harm from disclosure of identity | Public exposure could harm her and non-party J.S. | Not discussed in this order | Sufficient risk shown to justify pseudonymity at initial stage |
| Consideration of minors' privacy interests | Case does not involve minors | N/A | Factor does not support pseudonymity in this case |
| Fairness to defendant if case proceeds anonymously | Defendant knows identity; public disclosure unnecessary | Not discussed in this order | No unfairness to defendant; motion granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (sets out balancing test and general standard for pseudonymity in litigation)
- In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d 324 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (further refines the factors for granting leave to proceed anonymously)
- Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (describes the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings)