3:13-cv-06629 #3

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 181
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN DIVISION JOHN DOE, by and through JACK DOE and JANE DOE, JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of his son, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of her son JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, Governor of the State of New Jersey, in his official capacity, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. _________________
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER COME NOW, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel and file this Motion for Leave to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order. Plaintiffs are a minor child and the parents of that minor child who are seeking sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) counseling and who seek to proceed in the action pseudonymously. Plaintiffs also seek a protective order to prevent any parties with knowledge of their identity from disclosing it. The grounds for this motion are more fully set forth in the memorandum filed simultaneously herewith. Plaintiffs do not request oral argument, as it will be unnecessary.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Demetrios Stratis Demetrios Stratis New Jersey Bar No. !""#$%$$% Mathew D. Staver* Stephen M. Crampton* Daniel J. Schmid* Liberty Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24502 Tel. 434-592-7000 Fax: 434-592-7700 court@LC.org * Application to appear Pro Hac Vice pending
Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order - 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the court on November 1, 2013. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Demetrios Stratis Demetrios Stratis New Jersey Bar No. 022391991
Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order - 3
Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 184
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN DIVISION JOHN DOE, by and through JACK DOE and JANE DOE, JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of his son, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of her son JOHN DOE, ) ) ) ) ) Case No. _________________ ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, ) Governor of the State of New Jersey, in ) his official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER HONORABLE JUDGE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 1, 2013, Plaintiff will move for this Court to issue an Order permitting Plaintiffs to proceed with their suit seeking an injunction against New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3371 using a pseudonym to protect the identity of a minor child and his parents and for a Protective Order prohibiting all parties in the case from disclosing Plaintiffs identities.
Plaintiffs Notice of Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for Protective Order - 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN DIVISION JOHN DOE, by and through JACK DOE and JANE DOE, JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of his son, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of her son JOHN DOE ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. _________________ v. ) ) CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, ) Governor of the State of New Jersey, in ) his official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................ii STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................2 I. There are Substantial Reasons for Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed Using a Pseudonym. ........................................................................................................................4 A. B. C. II. Plaintiffs Mental Health Counseling is an Extremely Sensitive and Personal Matter Warranting Permission to Proceed Using a Pseudonym.......4 Plaintiffs Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs are a Personal and Sensitive Matter. ....................................................................................................................6 All of the Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Proceedings under a Pseudonym..............................................................................................................8
Defendants Will Suffer No Prejudice by Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed Pseudonymously...............................................................................................................10 A Protective Order is Needed to Ensure Plaintiffs Identities are Not Disclosed......11
III.
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Caeser v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976).5 Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154 (D.N.J. 2000) 5 Coe v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Colo., 676 F.2d 411 (10th Cir. 1982) .3 Doe v. Alaska, 122 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 1997) ..10 Doe v. Barrow Cnty., 219 F.R.D. 189 (N.D. Ga. 2003) .6 Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997)...2, 7 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) 2
ii
Doe v. Borough of Morrisville, 130 F.R.D. 612 (E.D. Pa. 1990) ...3 Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protections Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008) .2 Doe v. Chaffee, 355 F. Supp 112 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 3 Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2004) 2 Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 549 (D.N.J. 2006) ...2, 8, 9, 10 Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 595 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010).2 Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) 2, 3, 6 Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2004) .7, 10 Doe v. Providential Life & Accident Ins. Co., 176 F.R.D. 464 (E.D. Pa. 1997)...2, 3, 4, 9, 10 Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) ....6, 10 Doe v. United Behavioral Health, No. 10-5192, 2010 WL 5173206 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2010) ..3 Jaffree v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) ...4, 5, 6 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ......2
iii
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COME NOW Plaintiffs, JOHN DOE, by and through JACK and JANE DOE, JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of JOHN DOE (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through counsel and file this Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs bring this challenge against New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 23371 (A3371), which prohibits counselors from providing and minors from receiving sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) counseling from licensed mental health professionals to reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity, infringes on the fundamental rights of minors to self-determination, and tramples the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in a manner consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs seeking leave to proceed under a pseudonym are a 15-year-old minor child and his parents. (Compl. 23, 60). The minor is currently receiving counseling, but seeks additional counseling from a licensed psychologist concerning some of the root causes and additional issues surrounding his unwanted same-sex attractions and confusions surrounding his gender identity. (Id. 99-101). Plaintiffs are seeking such counseling at the suggestion of their current counselor. (Id.). Plaintiffs have contacted a licensed psychologist in New Jersey, but they were informed that no licensed mental health professional could engage in this counseling with them because of A3371. (Id. 102-03). Plaintiff parents seek to proceed under a pseudonym to protect the identity of their minor child and to protect him from an invasion of his privacy concerning those issues for which he seeks mental health counseling. Plaintiff child seeks to protect his own identity and his right to privacy. The relationship between a mental health
counselor and his clients is the quintessential relationship of confidence and trust, and the protection afforded to that relationship are additional reasons why Plaintiffs Motion should be granted. ARGUMENT [A] party to a civil actionwhether defendant or plaintiffmay proceed using pseudonyms when the particular circumstances of the case justify pseudonymity. Doe v. Providential Life & Accident Ins. Co., 176 F.R.D. 464, 466 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Indeed, the Supreme Court has given the practice implicit recognition in cases involving sensitive issues of a private or highly personal nature. Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protections Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 371 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)). [A] judge ruling on a motion to use a pseudonym has an independent duty to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the normal method of proceeding in federal courtsthe failure to do so on the part of the judge is clear error. Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 549 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004)). Additionally, while generally the public has a right to know who is using their court systems to challenge laws, there are certain well-defined exceptions. Specifically, fictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses. Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Parties seeking to proceed using a pseudonym must show both (1) a fear of severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is reasonable. Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 595 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010)). Among those cases permitting a party to proceed using a pseudonym
include cases involving abortion, birth control, transexuality, mental illness, . . . and homosexuality. Id. (Doe v. Borough of Morrisville, 130 F.R.D. 612, 614 (E.D. Pa. 1990)) (emphasis added). Cases in the Third Circuit have generally followed the guidelines set forth in Providential Life, which provides a list of non-exhaustive factors to consider when a party seeks to proceed using a pseudonym. Those factors supporting permitting a party to proceed using a pseudonym include: (1) the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (2) the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the substantiality of these bases; (3) the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigants identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants identities; (5) the undesirability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party and attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being publicly identified; and (6) whether the party seeking to sue pseudonymously has illegitimate ulterior motives. Providential Life, 176 F.R.D. at 467-68; see also Megless, 654 F.3d at 409. Matters of an extremely personal and intimate nature, such as those of the type of mental health counseling a person is receiving, are certainly exceptional cases warranting use of a pseudonym. See, e.g., Prudential Life, 176 F.R.D. at 469; Doe v. United Behavioral Health, No. 10-5192, 2010 WL 5173206 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2010). Courts have also permitted plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym when the matter concerns the very private and sensitive nature of sexual orientation. See Coe v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Colo., 676 F.2d 411, 416-17 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing numerous examples of cases where the use of pseudonyms were permitted because of privacy concerns); Doe v. Chaffee, 355 F. Supp 112 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (permitting plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in a case involving matters concerning his homosexuality). Here, all factors weigh in favor of permitting Plaintiffs to proceed using a pseudonym, and their motion should therefore be granted.
I.
There are Substantial Reasons for Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed Using a Pseudonym. There are several important reasons for permitting Plaintiffs to proceed under a
pseudonym. First, all mental health counseling, and especially SOCE counseling, is of an extremely personal and sensitive nature that weighs heavily against forcing Plaintiffs to litigate publicly. Also, a persons sincerely held religious beliefs are a personal and sensitive issue as well. Moreover, all of the balancing factors weigh in favor of permitting Plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym, and this Court should accordingly grant Plaintiffs motion. A. Plaintiffs Mental Health Counseling is an Extremely Sensitive and Personal Matter Warranting Permission to Proceed Under a Pseudonym.
Proceeding under a pseudonym is reserved for special circumstances precisely like those present in this case. First, matters involving mental health counseling, the purpose of such counseling, and the anxiety that already surrounds those who seek mental health counseling are extremely sensitive and highly personal. Unfortunately, in our society, there is a significant stigma associated with being identified as suffering a mental illness. Providential Life, 176 F.R.D. at 468. The same stigma is associated with those who seek mental health counseling regardless of whether the particular issue causing their underlying distress is technically classified as a mental illness or not. Additionally, the age of John Doe and the fact that he is only beginning to overcome his significant psychological distress and thoughts of suicide demonstrate that Plaintiffs are vulnerable to injury, harassment, and personal embarrassment. (John Doe Decl. 15). The Supreme Court has recognized that the psychotherapist-patient privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. Jaffree v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996). Because of the sensitive nature of the problems for which individuals consult psychotherapists,
disclosure of confidential communications made during counseling sessions may cause embarrassment or disgrace. For this reason, the mere possibility of disclosure may impede development of the confidential relationship necessary for successful treatment. Id. (emphasis added). This Court has specifically noted that the confidentiality afforded to mental health counseling is even greater than that given to other medical disciplines. See Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, 161 (D.N.J. 2000) (noting that the psychotherapist-patient privilege is protected greater than nearly any other privilege because mental health counseling is fundamentally dependent on the need for trust and confidentiality); see also Caeser v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1976) (psychotherapy is perhaps more dependent on absolute confidentiality than other medical disciplines.); (id.) (noting that court should be mindful of the justifiable expectation of confidentiality that most individuals seeking psychotherapeutic treatment harbor). While these statements were made in the context of a testimonial privilege, the premises have equal weight in this instance. In Jaffree, the Court noted that revelation of the information communicated in therapy can cause embarrassment and disgrace, which certainly constitutes mental harm and embarrassment on matters that are extremely personal. John Doe is seeking counseling to eliminate his unwanted same-sex attractions and resolve his confusion over his own gender identity. Nothing could be more personal than counseling focused exclusively on a persons own self-identity, and it is therefore an exceptional circumstance warranting use of a pseudonym. Forcing either John Doe or his parents to reveal their identities prior to proceeding in this lawsuit would utterly destroy their right to privacy because it would reveal the highly sensitive and personal fact that the Does are receiving SOCE counseling. This would blatantly intrude upon the most private aspects of the Plaintiffs mental and emotional health and upon the sanctity of
the familial relationships that Plaintiffs are seeking to improve through SOCE therapy. Plaintiffs motion should therefore be granted. Furthermore, for the relationship between a mental health counselor and a client to be successful, there must be confidentiality regarding what is discussed in the counseling sessions. See Jaffree, 518 U.S. at 10. Indeed, the mere possibility of disclosure could impede successful treatment. Id. Here, forcing Plaintiffs to reveal their identities would create an absolute certainty that the confidentiality required for effective counseling would be destroyed. Plaintiffs would therefore be forced to decide between seeking judicial relief to protect their right to receive effective counseling on the one hand, and maintaining the privacy and sanctity of the therapeutic alliance on the other. They could not have both. This is precisely the type of exceptional circumstance contemplated by the Third Circuit and Supreme Court to justify proceeding pseudonymously. See Megless, 654 F.3d at 409. B. Plaintiffs Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs are a Personal and Sensitive Matter.
Plaintiffs religious beliefs are also matters of a personal and highly sensitive nature. [R]eligion is perhaps the quintessentially private matter. Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Doe v. Barrow Cnty., 219 F.R.D. 189 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (stating the religious matters are inherently private to the individual). In Barrow County, the court considered a plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym when challenging a religious display. Barrow Cnty., 219 F.R.D. at 190. The court noted that while public access to information is important, the plaintiff was merely trying to shield his name from the records and not attempting to shield the constitutional questions he was raising. Id. at 193. There, the plaintiff did not have to explicitly state his religious beliefs in order to prosecute his lawsuit, but he had to prove injury as a result of the display to show he had standing. Id. As such, his explanation will necessarily
require him to reveal his beliefs concerning the proper interaction between government and religion. Id. Because the majority of the community in which the plaintiff lived supported the display, the court recognize[d] that such concerns can implicate privacy matters similar to those associated with actual religious teachings and beliefs. Accordingly, the court acknowledges plaintiffs privacy concerns. Id. The Sixth Circuit has similarly recognized that when one is challenging government actions in areas of religion, he is necessarily forced to reveal his personal religious beliefs if he is not allowed to proceed pseudonymously. Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560-61(6th Cir. 2004). The court also noted that this sensitivity is heightened when the pseudonyms are being used to protect minor plaintiffs from disclosure. Id.; see also Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the importance of protecting the identity of children who are involved in the litigation). Here, Plaintiffs seek to proceed using a pseudonym to protect not only their religious beliefs, but also the identity of their minor child and his religious beliefs. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a harmful and sinful lifestyle, contrary to the fundamental tenets of their faith. (John Doe Decl. 9) (I have a sincerely held religious belief and conviction that homosexuality is wrong. I wanted to address that value conflict because my same-sex attractions and gender confusion are contrary to the religious values that I hold. I want to live out my religious values and do not want to act out on same-sex attractions that violate my religious beliefs. I want to resolve my sexual attractions so that I act consistently with my religious beliefs.); (Jane Doe Decl. 18) (my husband and I also have sincerely-held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sinful and harmful lifestyle. My husband and I also have sincerely held religious beliefs that we are to train up our child in the way he should go
according to the Holy Bible and the teachings of our church, and that assisting him in receiving the counseling that will help our son live consistently with and prioritize his religious beliefs and values above his gender confusion and unwanted same-sex attractions is one aspect of training him up in the way he should go and educating him in the fundamental tenets of our faith .). Requiring Plaintiffs to litigate this matter without the use of a pseudonym would force them to reveal their religious beliefs, the religious beliefs of their minor son, and also that they are seeking counseling for their son concerning an issue that is against their religious beliefs. These are quintessential matters of private concern, and they are of a highly sensitive nature. As such, the Plaintiffs motion to proceed using a pseudonym is warranted and should be granted. C. All of the Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Proceeding under a Pseudonym.
Not only are the personal and sensitive matters at issue here unquestionably sufficient to warrant Plaintiffs proceeding under a pseudonym, but all of the relevant factors weigh in favor of permitting them to do so. First, prior to the commencement of this action, Plaintiffs have conscientiously kept the facts surrounding their counseling private and are adamant about protecting the identity of their minor son who is receiving SOCE counseling. See Hartford Life, 237 F.R.D. at 550 (noting that a conscious effort to protect ones identity and privacy prior to filing a lawsuit weighs in favor of permitting a party to proceed using a pesudonym). Second, as demonstrated above, Plaintiffs have a substantial and compelling basis upon which to keep their identities private. All of Plaintiffs reasons for seeking to proceed under a pseudonym are based on the fundamental right to privacy in the access to and provision of mental health services, the private nature of their religious beliefs, and the desire to protect their minor sons identity. The potential stigma attached to seeking and receiving mental health counseling is alone a sufficient reason, but Plaintiffs justification are even more compelling given that they involve a minor,
religion, and the highly personal nature the counseling. These all favor proceeding under a pseudonym. See id.; see also Provident Life, 176 F.R.D. at 468. Moreover, the public interest is served by permitting parties in Plaintiffs situation to proceed privately. The public has an interest in preventing the stigmatization of litigants who are seeking mental health counseling. Id. It is in societys best interest that litigants challenging mental health counseling regulations be permitted to proceed anonymously, or many (if not most) will never come forward to bring their claims. Hartford Life, 237 F.R.D. at 550 (there is a substantial public interest in ensuring cases like the Plaintiff's are adjudicated and the rights of [those who seek mental health counseling] are represented fairly and without the risk of stigmatization.) (emphasis added); see also Provident Life, 176 F.R.D. at 468 (A ruling by this Court, denying plaintiff the use of a pseudonym, may deter other people who are [seeking mental health counseling] from suing in order to vindicate their rights, merely because they fear that they will be stigmatized in their community if they are forced to bring suit under their true identity.). Additionally, keeping the identities of Plaintiffs private does not interfere with the publics right to the proceedings or to follow the legal issues being presented in the courts. If the proceedings are kept open and the public still has access to the information concerned in the litigation, then permitting a plaintiff to proceed using a pseudonym deprives the public of nothing. See id.; see also Hartford Life, 237 F.R.D. at 550.Futher, Plaintiffs need to protect the identity of their son and to protect him from any harm that would result to his progress in counseling is so compelling that an adverse ruling by this Court would preclude adjudication of a possibly meritorious claim that is ripe and ready for judicial review. Id. Finally, as evidenced by the substantial discussion above concerning the personal and highly intimate nature of
Plaintiffs counseling and all mental health counseling, it is beyond dispute that Plaintiffs have no illegal or ulterior motive in seeking to pursue their claims pseudonymously. See id. at 550-51; Providential Life, 176 F.R.D. at 469. Indeed, their reasons are the quintessential examples of compelling and reasonable justifications for seeking such protection. Plaintiffs motion should therefore be granted. II. Defendants Will Suffer No Prejudice by Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed Pseudonymously. Party anonymity does not obstruct the publics view of the issues joined or the courts performance in resolving them. The assurance of fairness preserved by public presence at a trial is not lost when one partys cause is pursued under a fictitious name. Does v. Stegall, 653 F.3d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the issues typically associated with proceeding under a pseudonym are substantially diminished when the questions to be resolved in the proceeding are purely legal questions. See Doe v. Alaska, 122 F.3d 1070, 1070 (9th Cir. 1997). In Doe v. Alaska, the court stated that the issues presented were purely legal and do not depend on identifying the specific plaintiffs. None of the values protected by public access will be hindered by the use of pseudonyms. The public, as well as the plaintiffs, will benefit when the case proceeds to a resolution on the merits. Id. The same is true of Plaintiffs claims here. The questions being raised by Plaintiffs involve whether A3371s prohibition of SOCE counseling unconstitutionally infringes Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to received information, to the free exercise of their religion, and parental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their child. These constitutional matters are purely legal questions and do not depend on the identity of Plaintiffs. Because A3371 prohibits licensed mental health professionals from providing SOCE counseling to all minors in New Jersey, the law potentially
10
affects thousands of parents and children now and a countless number of parents and children in the future. As such, it is important for the public at large and for Plaintiffs individually to resolve the legal issues presented as soon as possible. Allowing Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously, however, does not pose any risk of harm to Defendant. Their names are irrelevant to any legal arguments that Defendant could make, with the exception of standing which could be proven despite allowing Plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym. There simply is no need to reveal the identities of Plaintiffs in this case. As such, Plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym should be granted. III. A Protective Order is Needed to Ensure Plaintiffs Identities are Not Disclosed. Because of the highly sensitive nature of the issues surrounding this case and the fact that the Plaintiffs challenging this law are the parents of a minor and a minor who is receiving SOCE, Plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym is merited and should be granted. Additionally, in order to ensure that Plaintiffs identities are protected from disclosure, Plaintiffs also request a protective order prohibiting any person from publicly disclosing Plaintiffs identities and restricting access to the identities of Plaintiffs only to opposing counsel and their staff as needed to prepare and present their defense in this case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Leave to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order.
11
12
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN DIVISION JOHN DOE, by and through JACK DOE and JANE DOE, JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of his son, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of her son JOHN DOE, ) ) ) ) ) Case No. _________________ ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, ) Governor of the State of New Jersey, in ) his official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Following the parties submissions concerning Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order, and upon a showing of good cause, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs Motion and Orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to proceed in this action using the pseudonyms John
Doe, Jack Doe, and Jane Doe. 2. The parties shall use the pseudonyms when referring to Plaintiffs in all pleadings,
papers, hearings in open court, and other statements and documents that are part of the public record. 3. If the Plaintiffs identities, addresses, or other identifying information are
disclosed in any deposition, responses to interrogatories, or other discovery documents, then the party providing the information shall identify it as confidential. Pages in the documents, which contain the Plaintiffs identities or identifying information shall be labeled, CONFIDENTIAL, and those pages shall be separately bound into a document marked CONFIDENTIAL.
4.
All pleadings or documents, which contain the Plaintiffs identities, addresses, or
other identifying information shall not be publicly filed with the Court, but may be filed with the Court under seal, placed in envelopes marked with the caption of this action and the words DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER. 5. All Court personnel, including court reporters and their staff and agents, who
learn of the identities or identifying information related to the Plaintiffs are prohibited from taking any action that discloses to any person the identity or identifying information. 6. If so requested, Plaintiffs attorneys shall disclose Plaintiffs names and contact
information to the Defendants attorneys. Defendants attorneys shall be permitted to disclose Plaintiffs names and contact information to paralegals, legal assistants, and other support staff to the extent such disclosure is necessary to fully and fairly represent the Defendant. Each paralegal, legal assistant, and support staff member to whom the information is disclosed is to be provided a copy of this Order, review it, understand it, and understand that he or she is bound by its terms. 7. It is the intent of this Order to preserve the anonymity of the Plaintiffs to the
greatest extent possible while affording the parties sufficient information to fully and fairly address the issues raised in this action. Any person failing to comply with the terms of this Order may be subject to contempt proceedings and penalties that may include fines and/or incarceration. 8. This Court further instructs that no harassment, threats, intimidation, or
interference with Plaintiffs will be tolerated and violators will be subject to contempt proceedings. SO ORDERED. ______________________________ United States District Court Judge
Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonym and for Protective Order - 2
Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonym and for Protective Order - 3

3:13-cv-06629 #3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:13-cv-06629 #3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 181

Case No. _________________

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 182

Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order - 2

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 183

Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Using a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order - 3

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 184

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 185

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 186

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 187

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 188

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 189

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 190

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 191

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 192

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 193

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 194

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 195

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 196

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 197

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 198

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 199

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 200

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-2 Filed 11/01/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 201

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 202

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 203

All pleadings or documents, which contain the Plaintiffs identities, addresses, or

Case 3:13-cv-06629-FLW-LHG Document 3-3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 204

You might also like