No Pseudonymity for Illinois Ex-Med Student Suing Under Title IX to Challenge Dismissal for Sexual Misconduct

From yesterday’s decision by Judge Colleen Lawless (C.D. Ill.) in Doe v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois:

In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief under Title IX and other theories following his suspension from the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign following the University’s determination that he was responsible for a sexual assault. At the outset of this litigation, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The Court entered a Protective Order which provided that Plaintiff would pursue this litigation under the pseudonym “John Doe” and that the parties would refer to Plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend as “Jane Roe.”

On December 11, 2024, following the Seventh Circuit’s decisions in Doe v. Trustees of Indiana University, 101 F.4th 485 (7th Cir. 2024) and Doe v. Loyola University Chicago, 100 F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024), Defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois … moved for reconsideration of the Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym, which Plaintiff and non-party Jane Roe oppose….

A unique issue presented in this case is that Plaintiff was found responsible for sexual misconduct and, on a different occasion, after filing a complaint against Jane Roe, Plaintiff also was found to be a victim of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Roe. Roe disputes the allegations against her while also contending the process was unfair to her. She also states that her sanction was to write a paper and remain on probation for one year, after which her record was cleared of misconduct.

While the Court presumes that greater confidentiality protections are warranted for sexual misconduct victims as the Seventh Circuit suggested, see Loyola University, the Court concludes that anonymity on that basis does not extend to Plaintiff here because his complaint focuses on what he alleges were improper and unfair proceedings which resulted in a finding that he was responsible for sexual misconduct, thereby leading to his dismissal from the University. This case does not concern the allegations made by John Doe against Jane Roe. {For the same reason, to the extent that Jane Roe bases her opposition to disclosing Plaintiff’s identity on the fact that this litigation includes allegations about Roe’s alleged conduct toward Doe with which she disputes and claims are false, the Court is not considering any argument by Roe that Doe’s identity should not be disclosed on that basis.}

The Court will turn to whether the disclosure of Plaintiff’s real name in this case would allow others to identify Jane Roe….

In addition to interviewing John Doe and Jane Roe, investigators sought to interview 10 other witnesses, including two of their medical school classmates. Each of the 10 potential witnesses were informed in writing of the existence of the sexual misconduct allegations using John’s and Jane’s real names. Nine witnesses agreed to and were interviewed by OSCR investigators regarding Jane Roe’s allegations. One such witness was a medical school classmate of John Doe and Jane Roe. Six of the witnesses who were interviewed were friends of Roe’s at other schools to whom she had talked regarding her interactions with Doe and the sexual conduct at issues in her OSCR complaint. Four of those six witnesses were medical school students who Roe had met through her involvement with the American Medical Association. Wilczynski further stated that, during OSCR’s investigation of John Doe’s sexual misconduct complaint against Jane Roe, investigators interviewed Doe, Roe, and three other witnesses—one of whom was also interviewed in the investigation of Roe’s complaint.

Plaintiff and Jane Roe indicate they were part of the inaugural class of 32 medical students, all of whom were aware of their romantic relationship. Jane Roe believes that any of those students who are now doctors would be able to deduce that the allegations in this lawsuit concern Roe simply by knowing the identity of John Doe. Given the relatively small size of the medical community, the disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity could affect Jane Roe’s future employment or other professional opportunities and future earning capacity. According to Jane Roe, the relatively few witnesses who were interviewed in the University’s investigation—some of whom were not affiliated with the University—were asked fairly generic and open-ended questions that did not disclose the nature of the allegations or details in the complaint. Plaintiff and Jane Roe believe that, in addition to their classmates and others affiliated with the medical school, any of the individuals who were interviewed as part of the investigation would be able to identify Jane Roe if John Doe’s name were disclosed.

For many of those same reasons, Defendant believes it is highly unlikely that the disclosure of Plaintiff’s real name in case pleadings would change the status quo by expanding the group of people who can identify Jane Roe such that Plaintiff should remain anonymous to protect Roe’s privacy interests. Based on the fact that the complaint identifies Plaintiff and Jane Roe as second year medical students in the spring of 2020 and thus members of the inaugural medical school class and given the small size of the class and the fact it was then the only medical school class, it is likely other students as well as faculty and staff were aware of their relationship. Additionally, the complaint includes other potentially identifying details about Plaintiff and Jane Roe that members of the medical school community might recognize.

Defendant further notes that, based on the extent of the internal investigations of the sexual misconduct allegations, certain information about Plaintiff and Jane Roe (using their real names) had already spread among people both within and outside the medical school community. Thus, at least 12 other people who the University sought to interview could likely identify John Doe and Jane Roe by viewing the anonymized pleadings. Defendant contends this expands the number of people who can already identify Jane Roe from the pleadings despite the use of pseudonyms and renders it less likely that removing Plaintiff’s pseudonym would increase the number of people who can identify Roe from the pleadings.

Defendant next alleges that disclosing Plaintiff’s name but maintaining the use of the “Jane Roe” pseudonym would not lead anyone conducting online research concerning Roe by using her real name to find evidence of this litigation. The Court previously observed in considering a similar issue “that most civil lawsuits do not receive any media attention. Moreover, it is unknown whether anyone who knows Doe or Roe would ever avail themselves of the opportunity to view the civil docket in this case.” Therefore, Defendant contends that lowers the risk that disclosing Plaintiff’s real name would enable people who could not already identify Jane Roe to do so.

Based on the particular circumstances of this case—including the small size of the medical school and medical community in Central Illinois—the Court believes the risk is minimal that disclosure of John Doe’s identity would enable people who are not already able to identify Jane Roe based on the existing pleadings to be able to infer her identity. There are a significant number of people who knew Plaintiff and Jane Roe were dating, that Plaintiff was dismissed from medical school, and/or were aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct between the two. Any of those individuals would already be able to identify Jane Roe from the existing pleadings.

Additionally, it is likely there are other individuals who may not be familiar with the allegations of sexual misconduct but know Plaintiff’s and Jane Roe’s real names and other information about them such that, if they reviewed the pleadings, they could readily discern Roe’s identity despite the use of the John Doe pseudonym. Because of the small size of the class and medical school community and the number of witnesses contacted during the investigation, it also is likely that other students, faculty, and staff could identify Jane Roe from the detailed allegations in the complaint notwithstanding the use of pseudonyms.

The Court further notes that the disclosure of Plaintiff’s real name while maintaining the use of Jane Roe’s pseudonym would not enable anyone conducting online research regarding Jane, using her real name, to find evidence of this litigation. Additionally, it seems unlikely this case will attract media attention or that the public docket will be viewed by anyone who knows John Doe or Jane Roe. This further limits the risk that the disclosure of Plaintiff’s name in court filings would enable people to identify Jane Roe who otherwise could not.

For all of these reasons, the Court believes that the individuals who might be able to identify Jane Roe if Plaintiff’s name is listed in the pleadings have already been able to “put two and two together,” significantly limiting any risk that removing Plaintiff’s pseudonym would meaningfully expand the range of people who could identify Jane. Pursuant to the standards articulated by the Seventh Circuit in Indiana University and Loyola University, the Court finds no basis to continue to allow Plaintiff to proceed anonymously….

Plaintiff must litigate under his real name. Because Plaintiff was initially allowed to pursue the suit anonymously, he is entitled to an opportunity to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) if he wishes….

The post No Pseudonymity for Illinois Ex-Med Student Suing Under Title IX to Challenge Dismissal for Sexual Misconduct appeared first on Reason.com.