U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, et al, No. 5:2023cv00623 - Document 37 (S.D.W. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 15 MOTION by Jane Doe to Proceed Pseudonymously for pretrial purposes; directing the parties to proceed using Ms. Doe's initials only; and directing the parties to refrain from revealing any other identifying information in any public filing pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 1/30/2024. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented parties) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and JANE DOE, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00623 WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., and JAMES BOWYER, Defendants. Pending is Plaintiff-Intervenor Jane Doe to Proceed Pseudonymously [Doc. 15], filed December 6, 2023. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission That same day, Defendant WalOpposition - Response in Motion [Doc. 22], to which Ms. Doe replied [Doc. 23] on December 27, 2023. The matter is ready for adjudication. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, et al name all the parties Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) he title of the complaint must Doc. 37 The rule recognizes the general presumption of openness of judicial proceedings, which has a basis both in common law and in the First Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th 206, 210 (4th Cir. 2023) (first citing James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993); and then citing Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 66 (4th Cir. 2014)). P Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 274 (internal citations omitted). where privacy or confidentiality concerns are . . . sufficiently critical that parties or witnesses should be allowed this rare James, 6 F.3d at 238. To warrant this relief, the circumstances must be exceptional. Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th at 211 (quoting Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 273). In James v. Jacobsen, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1993), our Court of Appeals recited five non-exhaustive factors to consider when deciding motions to proceed by pseudonym: (1) the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly persona (2) (3) (4) (5) Id. at 238. District courts also have an independent obligation to ensure that extraordinary circumstances support such a request by balancing the party s stated interest in anonymity against the public's interest in openness and any prejudice that anonymity would pose to the opposing Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 274. Applying the first factor, the Court finds the allegations in this case involving sexual assault and battery concern highly sensitive and personal subjects, including allegations of 2 forced oral enitals. [Doc. 1 at 5 . Likewise, the second factor, f Ms. Doe] will pose a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, innocent nonparties inextricably linked to the first. That is, in cases involving the highly sensitive and personal nature of sexual assault, there is a heightened risk of physical or mental harm to the requesting party if she is compelled to reveal her identity. Sexual violence is a profoundly negative and traumatic life event with widespread psychological and sociological effects on the victim. name on the public docket, which is likely to remain permanently available on the Internet, presents a significant risk of subjecting Ms. Doe to future psychological trauma stemming from unwarranted insults and interrogations; feelings of shame, helplessness, and powerlessness; and harmful stigmas and possible bias she could face as a result of bringing this case. Moreover, Ms. Doe comes from an exceptionally religious family years her father has been a pastor in their small community for many and is a single mother of two minor children who attend public schools. The damaging stigmas are likely to not only affect Ms. Doe, but her family members as well. Because electronic case filings mean that Ms. perpetually available to anyone with Internet access, including the peers of her teenaged children, further subjects her family members to potential harassment, prejudice, and feelings of anxiety, shock, and guilt. Thus, public disclosure of the highly sensitive and personal sexual assault allegations in this case presents a substantial risk of collateral harm to innocent non-parties, including . The public also has a substantial interest in ensuring victims of sexual assault are not deterred from reporting such crimes, and permitting victims to proceed pseudonymously 3 removes a significant barrier. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart insists that anonymity going forward will prejudice Defendants but makes no argument regarding such prejudice beyond listing reasons why other courts have denied permitting sexual assault plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. [Doc. 22 at 15 18]. However, to the extent Wal-Mart contends that forward will prejudice its discovery efforts because anonymity going anonymity would make it more difficult -examine [Doc. 22 at 17 (quoting Doe v. Skyline Autos. Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)], these arguments lack merit. First, Defendants know the identity of Ms. Doe. Second, the Complaint specifies both and particular period of time and location where these alleged events took place. Thus, it is difficult for the Court to see how permitting Ms. Doe to proceed pseudonymously would make it more difficult for Defendants to obtain witness testimony or how the disclosure of Ms. identity on the public docket would bring out any unidentified third-party witnesses. Moreover, Wal-Mart has made no allegation that Ms. Doe is refusing to disclose the identities of any potential witnesses or that it is prejudiced by a lack of information about the events that led to allegations. Wal- anonymity in pretrial, public filings would hinder settlement negotiations where Waland can communicate with her through counsel. Finally, were this case to proceed to trial, Ms. Doe concedes that she would be required to appear in open court under her legal name [Doc. 23 at 12]. Defendants would thus have the opportunity to fully and adequately cross-examine Ms. Doe then. Therefore, because discovery does not appear to be inhibited by the desire to proceed pseudonymously, there is little to no risk of unfairness to Defendants at this stage in the proceeding. 4 Wal-Mart further contends notions of equity require Ms. Doe to identify herself -embarrassing charges against Defendants using Doe v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 07-CV-1262, 2007 WL 9706836, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2007)]. Although sexual assault allegations can be damaging to the reputation of Defendants, Wal-Mart largest private employer and company by revenue has failed to explain how permitting Ms. Doe to pursue this action under a pseudonym would prejudice its business reputation or ability to operate either locally or globally. On the other hand, Mr. Bowyer is indeed an individual whose personal reputation is at stake in this litigation. However, where the defendant knows the identity of his accuser, the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously The Court is hard pressed to find that allowing Ms. Doe to proceed under a pseudonym would be so unfair to Mr. Bowyer such that her identity should be made public at this juncture of the litigation. Indeed, because Mr. Bowyer knows Ms. Doe identity, his defense is not prejudiced by lack of knowledge about the events that led to Ms. Doe pursuit of this action. Ms. Doe has not sought to impose any limitation on to conduct whatever discovery he deems necessary. Rather, Ms. Doe only seeks to protect against public disclosure of identifying information for pretrial purposes. Were this case goes to trial, Ms. Doe concedes that the jury would need to know her identity to conduct proper voir dire [Doc. 23 at 12]. Thus, Mr. Bowyer will have a public forum in which to defend charges of sexual harassment, assault, and battery. Other than the need to make redactions and take measures not to at this stage. Therefore, the fifth factor weighs in favor of allowing Ms. Doe to proceeded under a pseudonym for pretrial purposes. 5 Accordingly, in order to balance the public linking rights of access and the harm of identity to sensitive and personal allegations, the Court Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously [ ] for pretrial purposes. The Court the initials only. The parties shall refrain from revealing any other identifying information in any public filing pending further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented parties. ENTER: 6 January 30, 2024
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
