From the decision last month in Doe v. Suarez by L.A. Superior Court Judge Sarah Heide (appeal pending):
This case arises from an allegation of sexual assault. According to the complaint, plaintiff Jane Doe met defendant online and the two arranged to meet for dinner. Following dinner, and after an evening of heavy drinking, plaintiff alleges defendant raped her…. On April 10, 2024, plaintiff was placed on the Judicial Council's list of Vexatious Litigants [based on her previous, unrelated lawsuits -EV] ….
Plaintiff requests a protective order granting her leave to proceed under a pseudonym in this action on the grounds that plaintiff's need for anonymity outweighs any prejudice to defendant and the public's interest is served by protecting plaintiff's identity…. Plaintiff argues that the sensitive and personal nature of her claims justify the protection of her privacy and psychological well-being. She maintains that disclosure of her identity could not only embarrass her but cause her more emotional harm, affect her job prospects, and bring unwanted attention to herself.
Plaintiff states that in July 2022, her identity was involuntarily disclosed in connection with sexual assault which led to death threats and harassment; she has felt compelled to change her place of residence and her phone number out of concern for safety. She argues that defendant will not be prejudiced if plaintiff proceeds under a pseudonym because plaintiff's identity is already known to defendant, as he filed his answer including her true name; therefore, his ability to mount a defense would not be obstructed by her identity being shielded from the public.
Defendant argues that plaintiff's true name is already a matter of public record in several matters. For example, in the Doe v. Newsom complaint, plaintiff references the sexual assault allegations against defendant, and in the matter of Doe v. County of Los Angeles, plaintiff is identified as the same plaintiff from Doe v. Newsom. In professor Volokh's article, The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation (2022) 73 Hastings L.J. 1353, plaintiff's name was included as an example of a litigant whose use of pseudonymity impedes investigation into her trustworthiness and past litigation. After that, plaintiff sued professor Volokh. (Luo v. Volokh (2024) 102 Cal.App.4th 1312.)
Defendant provides that the other cases where plaintiff is named includes: Xingfei Luo v. County of Los Angeles; Luo v. Wang …; and Luo v. Czodo, the case in which defendant prevailed on his motion to name plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff's name is also published on the vexatious litigant list by the Judicial Council. Defendant argues that as her name is already public record, a sealing or pseudonym order is not appropriate.
The court finds that although plaintiff does have some interest in maintaining her privacy, plaintiff has already been identified in connection with numerous sexual assault allegations are already a part of the public record, including the court cases identified above, there is no overriding interest for plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.
Moreover, allowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym could enable her to evade judicial oversight under the vexatious litigant rules by obscuring her litigation history and identity across multiple cases. The public and the courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring transparency and consistency in identifying litigants, particularly where there may be a pattern of abusive or repetitive filings. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff's motion for a protective order seeking leave to proceed under a pseudonym.
Jamie R. Schloss and Jeff W. LeBlanc (Anderson & Leblanc, P.L.C.) represent defendant.
The post No Pseudonymity for Vexatious Litigant, Even When She Is Alleging Sexual Assault appeared first on Reason.com.
