*1 late. tendered record that the admits clerk. His attorney attor made error, admittedly that such findWe motion. cause defendant, grant is good criminal for a ney Belated In re: 5, 1979. order dated February curiam See per State, Cases, Terry 964; in Criminal Ark. Appeals 243, 613 Ark. Committee be forwarded will copy Conduct. Professional
on al. v. UNION CO. et RAILROAD PACIFIC DOE Jane 914 S.W.2d 95-682 of Arkansas Court delivered February Opinion *2 Duncan & Rainwater, Duncan and Neil Philip J. by: Chamberlin, for appellant. Clark, & William H. Sutton and
Friday, Eldredge
by:
Watson, for
Dewey
Union
R.R.
Pac.
Co.
appellee
John
Clark,
&
Tonia P.
and Will
Friday, Eldredge
by:
Jones
Bond, for
Ramone,
Michael
D.O.
appellee
&
L.
Wright,
Lindsey
by: Sammye
Jennings,
Taylor
and
A. Price, Troy
MoPac
appellees
Health Ass’n
Employees
and MoPac
Ass’n
Health
Trust.
Employees
Bradley D.
Jesson,
Chief
taken
Justice.
from the trial court’s denial
motion to
appellant’s
prose-
cute
lawsuit under
Doe.”
hold
pseudonym “Jane
that the court’s
final,
is not a
order.
Therefore,
is dismissed.
visited the
Oakwood
Medical Center
Family
on March
9, 1992, where she was examined
Michael
by
Ramone, D.O. The Center
was
Union
operated
purportedly
by
Pacific Railroad
the Missouri Pacific
Company,
Employees
to her
Trust. According
Association
and the
Health Association
sexu-
and
touched in
improper
the appellant
complaint,
examination.
the course
manner during
suggestive
ally
filed suit
4, 1994,
against
the appellant
On March
medical malpractice,
for negligence,
damages
seeking
appellees
to her
complaint
invasion
caption
privacy.
outrage
all
but listed
Doe” as
contained the
plaintiff,
“Jane
was furnished
true
name. The
identity
defendants
appellant’s
cover.
under
appellees
separate
use of the
pseudo-
objected
appellees
asked
case. The
to dismiss the
moved
nym
sensitive,
conceal
private
court for leave to
her identity, citing
*3
the
The court denied
nature
the
complaint.
allegations
com-
file an amended
motion
the
ten
appellant
days
gave
in
The
filed
her own name.
subsequent
appellant
plaint
a letter
from her
motion which
psycholo-
incorporated
stated that the
had been traumatized by
letter
gist.
a result.
the
and suffered
emotional
as
incident
various
problems
the
The trial
reviewed
letter and considered
court
the
federal
cases on the
motion
of a number of
court
subject.
light
See,
Cir.
Frank,
(11th
1992).
The Plaintiff’s Motion Certification Appeal the with to the issue of court’s order granted. respect Leave to File Under is final Plaintiff’s Motion for Seal of the PlaintifFs because disclosure identity her of a and it would be substantial right in her condi- of this court to her former place issue tion. There is no reason to just delay imme- and a would be alleviated an potential injustice diate appeal. first the trial court’s order is appellant argues 54(b). Rule That because with ARCP complies circumstances,
rule under certain allows interlocutory appeals but those here. lan circumstances are not present By express all 54(b) to orders in which fewer that Rule guage, pertains claims or all fewer than are of. The order disposed parties this case involves a aon issue. It does ruling preliminary legal of one of claims or one of several several dispose parties.
Rather than of the trial court’s analyze appealability order under Rule 54(b), we refer to Rule 2 Arkansas Rules of Procedure. rule That contains a list of the Appellate from of orders which an types taken. We note at appeal may the outset that Rule 2 does not an allow from a expressly which denies a prosecute be termed the rule anonymity. might general regarding is stated in ARAP Rule 2(a)(2): appealability (a) An a circuit, be taken from appeal may or chancery court to the Arkansas probate Court from: 2. An order which in effect determines the action and pre- vents a from which an judgment be taken, appeal might or discontinues action.
We have this of Rule 2 to mean interpreted portion that, order to be it must dismiss the appealable, court, from the action, them from the discharge or conclude their rights matter in subject The order must be of controversy. such a nature to not decide the but only parties, the court’s execution, directive into ending litigation of it. separable part 835 S.W.2d Kelly Kelly, *4 869 (1992). the court’s order in this case did not Certainly dis miss the from the court or conclude their in matter subject The court’s was on a controversy. ruling pre matter, liminary unconnected with the merits of the litigation. The order cannot be considered a as branch ending of separable the litigation. us to appellant urges 2 employ Rule as exception
we in Farms, have done the cases of Omni Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Co., 61, 271 Ark. 607 (1980) S.W.2d 363 Light Brown, v. 422, 288 Gipson Ark. 706 S.W.2d 369 In Omni Farms, the trial court entered an order condem- approving nation of the land. The order would have allowed AP&L to land, immediate on the begin construction even though the issue of the amount of remained to compensation be decided. church members Gipson, suit to obtain financial brought data
241 entered a discov- court trial from the church management. to turn church of had the effect requiring order which ery in We allowed appeals information. much of the over requested Omni Farms: in instances, both stating if A.P.&L. conceded counsel for At the oral argument in it be will impossible construction is allowed proceed, be land to restored of reversal for Omni’s the event a of one this is condition. We conclude previous some of our ear- instances, foreseen rare by comparatively an order must which regarded lier opinions, the order would because otherwise appealable as to such substantial right way in its former of the court to place condition. cases, the trial court’s ruling,
In both of the above-cited nature, effect had the practical while technically interlocutory on the merits case. That is not the situa- a final of Chilldres, Scheland v. is more tion here. analogous the trial court 165, (1993), Ark. which not, did from a issue but rendered a decision on an important of the case. Scheland conclude the merits standpoint, practical action to in a involved an order paternity requiring be an that, the issue a blood test. held while might undergo one, an important premature. an amendment us appellant urges adopt
Finally, We took this Rule 2 to allow this interlocutory appeal. type of Herron v. cases approach Jones, Nesheim, and Ford Motor Credit Co. S.W.2d Herron, (1985). In we declared that Ark. be made an order counsel would disqualifying Nesheim, same for an order to Rule 2. In we did the amendment However, the considerations a case as a class action. certifying here. If a which were in those cases do exist present party’s of the counsel of counsel is disqualified, litigant deprived counsel, and, if choice, must his lawsuit with other pursue reversed, *5 to start the trial court’s order is entitled later again action, if a with counsel. class original Similarly, ordinarily its is con and allowed proceed complicated lengthy process, on have clusion before reviewed again being a useless event of reversal. this gone process through case, there is to indicate that not would nothing could not her action the absence prosecute anonymity. should also out had that she to allow the issue to point option be decided on the motion to dismiss. Had the motion appellees’ to dismiss been final order have been in exis- granted, tence. The before this court at this time is that it only showing would be difficult for the her emotionally pursue lawsuit in her own and that she would do so. prefer Nesheim, There is Herron no as there was in showing, burdensome and would result litigation meaningless absence of an appeal.
We hold that is and dismiss premature without this raise issue of a final prejudice upon entry order. dismissed.
Appeal Corbin, Brown, and Roaf, dissent. JJ., Brown, Robert L. I would this Justice, dissenting. accept and decide the issue in Omni under the test employed Farms, Inc. v. Arkansas Co., Power & 271 Ark. Light Brown, S.W.2d 363 Gipson Doe in her briefs requested and at oral argu- Jane ment is that the case, as contained style the permanent record, not her reflect real name. She has made actual name available to counsel for Dr. Ramone. She available for discov- and will at ery trial to appear testify public. Any enterprising news could ferret reporter out her real name. Her true name trial; be used may at that is unclear. Her actually concern is and whether of this case will history style permanently reflect her correct name. states the Omni Farms majority that I would analysis
use in this case:
At the oral counsel for A.P.& L. argument conceded if the construction is allowed to it will be proceed, impos- sible in the event of a reversal for Omni’s land to restored to condition. We previous conclude that this
243 some foreseen instances, rare one comparatively be must order in which an our earlier of opinions, would the order because otherwise regarded it as to in such a substantial way right former in its of court to place condition. standard, Omni at 364. Ark. at S.W.2d Using
271 involved, and a substantial decide whether we should matter before fail to correct the it will lost if we (2) whether be trial. that it I take issue with majority trial instances where the door to in all going
closes appeals should leave violate a utmost rights. party’s privacy final order even when a the door cracked for such rare appeals, from Sche- This differs has not been rendered in the matter. case Chilldres, 165, (1993). land v. test a blood to establish Scheland involved paternity. taking sexual invasion Here, we are concerned with of allegations are different terms of which privacy categorically considerations.
Other have of jurisdictions accepted anonymity appeals See, utmost be resolved. issues where question privacy (4th 1993) (artificial v. F.3d 233 Cir. e.g., Jacobson, James — Doe allowed); insemination by physician’s sperm anonymity — Frank, (11th 1992) 951 F.2d Cir. ano (alcoholism v. allowed); Bodwin, 119 Mich. Doe nymity App. N.W.2d 473 The Fourth Circuit of stated Court Appeals v. Jacobson: James decision whether permit proceed parties at trial is one of manage- anonymously involving many ment of the are com- trial that obvious reasons process mitted in the to trial This first instance court discretion. that other pre- implies, among things, though general sumption openness judicial proceedings applies closure, as a limited form of see party anonymity Stegall, F.2d at as a operates only presumption absolute, not as an unreviewable license to rule deny. rather is that under circumstances anonymity appropriate discretion, as a matter of may, permitted. simply concerns are recognizes privacy confidentiality sometimes critical or witnesses sufficiently should be allowed this rare dispensation. necessary *7 is that there is a into the corollary judicial duty inquire circumstances of cases to determine whether the particular is warranted. dispensation
We should do the same and determine whether analysis of utmost would be lost to trial rather privacy by going than the matter for lack of merely dismissing a final order.
I dissent. respectfully Roaf,
Corbin and JJ., join. MOSLEY v. STATE Tommy Ray of Arkansas CR 95-872 Court of Arkansas delivered
Opinion February