Hartley v. Wilfert
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39274
D.D.C.2013Background
- Hartley alleges that Officer Doe and Officer Wilfert violated her First Amendment rights on July 20, 2009 outside the White House sidewalk.
- Hartley filed an administrative complaint with the Secret Service on August 19, 2010.
- Hartley filed this civil action on July 18, 2012, naming Wilfert and the unnamed Doe as defendants.
- Hartley seeks the Court to order disclosure of Doe's true name and address to effect service.
- Defendants move to dismiss Doe’s identity as moot on statute-of-limitations grounds; Doe moves to dismiss as untimely, arguing misnaming defeats timely amendment.
- The court denies both motions without prejudice as premature because discovery has not yet commenced, and the relation-back issue depends on later amendment and notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hartley may discover Doe’s identity before discovery. | Hartley cannot proceed without Doe’s name. | Identity can be obtained via discovery; no need for early disclosure. | Denied without prejudice; discovery should proceed. |
| Whether Doe’s identity can relate back to the timely original complaint if later amended. | Amendment naming Doe should relate back under Rule 15(c). | Relation back depends on notice and discovery specifics; premature to decide. | Denied without prejudice; address with future motion to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (controls relation-back analysis for amendments naming previously unknown defendants)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (recognizes John Doe exception to service rule for discovery)
- Glover v. FDIC, 698 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2012) (relates to notice and relation back in amendments)
- Philogene v. District of Columbia, 864 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2012) (distinguishes timely notice for relation back)
- Landwehr v. FDIC, 282 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (limits on discovery and naming unknown defendants)
- Simmons v. District of Columbia, 750 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011) (permits John Doe suits but requires eventual substitution of named defendants)