From today’s decision by Judge Steven McAuliffe (D.N.H.) in Doe v. Trustees of Dartmouth College (for an earlier similar decision related to Doe’s lawsuit against Penn, see here):
“Litigation by pseudonym should occur only in exceptional cases.” Indeed, a “strong presumption” exists against proceeding by pseudonym, which “dims the public’s perception of the matter and frustrates its oversight of judicial performance.” That presumption, however, is rebuttable….
Doe alleges that he was denied admission to Dartmouth’s business school because of his “non-Jewish White ethnic heritage.” He says that despite his “outstanding qualifications,” his application was rejected. He further asserts that Dartmouth excludes nearly all “non-Jewish Whites” from admission, unless the applicant is female, “queer” or a “veteran[] of the U.S. armed forces,” because those applicants “pose no threat to the Jewish Supremacists.” According to Doe, Dartmouth’s admissions decisions are part of a greater plan “drafted by the Jewish Supremacists with the express goal of exterminating non-Jewish Whites.”
Doe claims that he will be subject to a “significant risk of professional retaliation and social stigma within his academic and professional community, causing irreparable harm to his career and personal well-being” should his identity be publicly disclosed (presumably due to his application’s rejection, but perhaps due to his litigation theories). He goes on to argue that “[p]ublic identification in a high-profile discrimination suit against a major institution like [Dartmouth] carries a significant risk of ‘blacklisting’ from potential future employers and professional collaborators.”
And, because his complaint alleges that defendant’s admission practices “unfairly favor Jews,” Doe argues that, if his identity is disclosed, he could be subjected to financial harm such as “debanking,” physical harm, or murder by Mossad agents. {Doe alleges President John F. Kennedy was murdered by Israeli intelligence agents in an effort to thwart Kennedy’s attempts to obstruct Israeli military efforts.} That is because, he says, “Jews commonly harm or murder their opposers and the families of the opposers.” Finally, he argues that anonymity is warranted because his case relies on his academic records, which are confidential and protected under federal law….
To warrant anonymity here, Doe must establish that he “reasonably fears that coming out of the shadows will cause him unusually severe harm (either physical or psychological).” Doe alleges only that disclosure of his identity will result in injury to his reputation, employment prospects, and financial status. Courts have regularly held, however, that “[o]rdinary reputational injury, embarrassment, or economic loss do not meet that standard.”
Doe does assert that his physical safety will be threatened if he is not allowed to proceed pseudonymously because “Jews commonly harm or murder their opposers.” But, those allegations, unsupported by any particularized evidentiary showing, are, to put it charitably, not credible. That is, Doe fails to plausibly allege with any degree of specificity a legitimate threat to his physical safety. And, finally, … plaintiff’s concerns regarding the confidentiality of his academic record can be easily addressed using tools “such as redacting or sealing documents to manage privacy concerns that arise during the litigation.” … “FERPA permits limited disclosures in litigation and does not by itself mandate anonymity for a plaintiff who has chosen to bring a public lawsuit.” …
I expect Doe will be appealing (as well as continuing to be unappealing), since he is now appealing the no-pseudonymity decision in the Penn case.
