PAGE 1 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

DAVID H. ANGELI, OSB No. 020244 

david@angelilaw.com 

KRISTEN L. TRANETZKI, OSB. No. 115730 

kristen@angelilaw.com 

Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC 

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 954-2232 

Facsimile: (503) 227-0880 

COURTNEY W. ANGELI, OSB No. 941765 

courtney@baaslaw.com 

ROBIN BOWERFIND, OSB No. 035949 

robin@baaslaw.com 

Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP 

321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

Facsimile: (971) 230-0337 

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JOHN DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE REED INSTITUTE 

(aka, Reed College) and JANE ROE, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00617-MO 

OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 10
PAGE 2 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

LOCAL RULE 7-1 CERTIFICATION 

 Pursuant to LR 7-1(a), counsel for plaintiff John Doe certifies that they made a good faith 

effort to confer with counsel for defendants the Reed Institute (“Reed”) and Jane Roe and that 

Reed opposes this motion. Counsel was unable to determine Roe’s position on this motion prior 

to filing. 

MOTION 

 Pursuant to Rule 26(c), plaintiff Doe moves this Court for entry of the attached Protective 

Order Governing Nonparty Discovery. This motion is supported by the following memorandum 

of law. 

MEMORANDUM 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff has been litigating this suit under a pseudonym in order to protect his privacy 

interests as he seeks redress against Jane Roe (“Roe”)1 and the Reed Institute (“Reed”). The 

Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym (ECF 

No. 9) and entered the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 49), to safeguard Doe and 

Roe’s identities in public filings. The parties recognize that they now may have to use Doe’s 

and/or Roe’s real names with nonparty witnesses as part of their on-going investigation and 

discovery. It appears that Reed wishes to reveal Doe’s true identity in connection with this 

lawsuit, in order to ferret out and speak with potential witnesses about him and Roe. Plaintiff 

thus seeks a limited protective order that will guard against unnecessary or widespread disclosure 

of his and Roe’s true identities during the parties’ investigation and discovery. 

                                                            

1

 Doe also sought to protect the privacy interests of his accuser and has referred to her as Jane 

Roe in all public filings. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 10
PAGE 3 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

The Court should grant Plaintiff’s request for three reasons. First, substantial reasons 

exist to ensure the continued protection of Doe’s true identity. Doe is not only accused of 

sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend, he also is a victim of sexual assault himself, as determined 

by Reed’s own internal investigation. There has been significant media attention to this 

litigation and revealing his true identity now – without proper precautions in place – would 

undermine the very goals of the lawsuit and cause him irreparable harm. Second, Reed will not 

be disadvantaged by entry of the Protective Order. Reed already knows Doe’s and Roe’s true 

identities and has been conducting its investigation using that knowledge. In fact, Reed’s 

counsel was able to identify in its Initial Disclosures 42 individuals as likely having discoverable 

information about the case. Third, the proposed Protective Order is narrowly tailored to achieve 

the dual goals of protecting Doe’s and Roe’s identities while still allowing the parties to engage 

in robust investigation and discovery. 

II. ARGUMENT 

A. Substantial Reasons Still Exist to Protect Doe’s Identity. 

As previously set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym (ECF No. 2), 

Doe’s privacy interests are significant. Doe was expelled from Reed, following false and 

malicious allegations made by his ex-girlfriend Roe that he sexually assaulted her, and after a 

fundamentally flawed and discriminatory disciplinary proceeding conducted by Reed. In this 

action, he seeks to clear his record of the erroneous findings issued by Reed. Doe sought, and 

was granted, permission to litigate under a pseudonym. (ECF No. 9.) Substantial reasons exist 

to ensure the continued protection of Doe’s real identity. 

The allegations involving Doe and related factual context are of an extremely private and 

intimate nature. Central to the Complaint is the sexual relationship between Doe and Roe, who, 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 10
PAGE 4 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

at all times relevant, were young college students. The highly intimate (as well as salacious and 

unconventional) details of their sexual relationship are directly at issue in Doe’s suit. Because 

the allegations are “of the utmost intimacy,” Doe is entitled to the protection of a pseudonym. 

Doe v. Univ. of the South, No. 4:09-cv-62, Memorandum and Order (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 7, 2009) 

(Lee, U.S.M.J.); see also Doe v. University of Montana, No. 9:12-cv-00077-DLC, 2012 WL 

2416481 (D. Mt. June 26, 2012) at *4 (permitting redaction of student names in Title IX case 

against university brought by alleged perpetrator of sexual assault because “the interests of those 

individuals in avoiding undue embarrassment, harassment, and disclosure of sensitive private 

information outweigh the public’s need to know their names.”). Courts have consistently 

recognized that “[o]ne’s sexual history and practices are among the most intimate aspects of a 

person’s life.” Doe v. Diocese Corp., 647 A.2d 1067, 1071-72 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994). 

In addition, Doe himself was a victim of sexual assault while at Reed – as confirmed by 

Reed’s own internal investigation. His own experience of being a sexual assault victim at Reed 

is directly relevant to this lawsuit and serves as the basis for Doe’s deliberate indifference claim 

against Reed. As a victim of sexual assault, Doe has a special need for continued anonymity. 

Doe 140 v. The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, CV. 07-1733-PK (Opinion and Order, 

February 26, 2008) at *6 (allowing plaintiff to proceed under pseudonym because “public 

knowledge of [sexual] abuse can trigger new trauma”); Globe Newspaper Co. Inc. v. Clerk of 

Suffolk County Superior Court, No. 01-5588*F, 2002 WL 202464, at *6 (Mass. Super. Feb. 4, 

2002) (“for many victims of sexual abuse . . . public revelation of the abuse, if not sought by 

them, victimizes them yet again.”). The names of rape victims are regularly shielded from the 

public. See, e.g., Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th 

Cir.1997) (“fictitious names are allowed necessary to protect the privacy of ... rape victims, and 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 10
PAGE 5 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses”); Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. Pa 

2001) (granting anonymity to sexual assault victim). We would expect Reed to endeavor to 

protect Doe’s identity – as a victim of sexual assault – with the same diligence shown for other 

victims of sexual assault at Reed. 

The Court agreed when this case was filed that good cause existed to maintain the 

confidentiality of Doe’s identity, and nothing since the case was filed alters that conclusion. 

Revealing Doe’s identity now, at this stage of the litigation, would forever link his name with the 

accusation of sexual assault and publicly identify him as the student expelled from Reed. In 

assessing whether the use of a pseudonym is appropriate, courts must consider whether the 

“injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity.” Doe 

v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 162 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Here, identification of Doe would defeat the 

very purpose of this lawsuit. Revealing Doe’s actual name without proper safeguards would 

likely result in the public association of his name with Roe’s false and egregious allegations of 

sexual assault, thereby “vitiating” a primary purpose of the lawsuit. See, e.g., Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 

at 161-62; Roe v. Ingraham, 364 F.Supp. 536, 541 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). 

If anything, the proposed Protective Order is all the more necessary than when Doe filed 

his lawsuit, because there has been significant media attention to this litigation. This case has 

regularly been covered by the Oregonian and other local news outlets. See, e.g., Federal Lawsuit 

Accused Reed College of Gender Discrimination: Case alleges Reed expelled male student 

accused of sexual assault to protect school’s image, WILLAMETTE WEEK, Apr. 15, 20152

; Bryan 

Denson, Reed College students’ group sex, drugs, sex tape at heart of Title IX lawsuit, THE 

                                                            

2

 Available at http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-33078-

federal_lawsuit_accuses_reed_college_of_gender_dis.html (last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 5 of 10
PAGE 6 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

OREGONIAN, Apr. 16, 20153; Bryan Denson, Reed College says ex-student suing school supplied 

drugs for group sex, kept elicit tape on phone, THE OREGONIAN, May 13, 20154

; Bryan Denson, 

Reed grad ‘Jane Roe’ fires back at ex-boyfriend’s Title IX claims in drugs and group sex lawsuit,

THE OREGONIAN, May 18, 20155; Bryan Denson, Judge orders Reed College to cough up student 

and alumni disciplinary files in sex and drug lawsuit, THE OREGONIAN, Sept. 9, 2015.6

 These 

articles have generated significant public attention: there were more than 330 comments from 

readers on OregonLive’s website. Local television stations, including KATU and KOIN, have 

similarly reported on the litigation. In addition, the recent decisions regarding Reed’s production 

of years of disciplinary files at Plaintiff’s request have further increased the attention to this case, 

especially of current and former Reed students and other members of the Reed community, some 

who are very upset about having their records released. 

This litigation has also garnered national media attention. See, e.g., Karina Brown, 

Student Fights Expulsion for a Threesome, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Apr. 16, 20157

; Jake 

New, Suits from the Accused, INSIDE HIGHER ED, May 1, 2015.8 It has been discussed on such 

                                                            

3

 Available at 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/04/reed_college_students_group_se.html

(last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

4

 Available at 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/05/reed_college_says_accuser_john.html

(last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

5

 Available at 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/05/reed_grad_jane_roe_fires_back.html

(last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

6

 Available at 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/09/judge_orders_reed_college_to_c.html

(last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

7

 Available at http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/04/16/student-fights-expulsion-for-athreesome.htm (last viewed Dec. 23, 2015).

8

 Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/01/students-accused-sexualassault-struggle-win-gender-bias-lawsuits (last viewed Dec. 23, 2015). 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 6 of 10
PAGE 7 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

online forums as College Confidential.9 It has even become the subject of a Taiwanese 

animation available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0iCrDaDnqQ. 

 The heightened attention to this litigation demands that procedural safeguards be put in 

place to better control the use of Doe’s and Roe’s real names in connection with this lawsuit. 

Doe continues to have significant privacy interests that require that the parties’ investigation and 

discovery be conducted under the protections of the proposed Protective Order. 

B. Reed Will Not Be Disadvantaged by the Proposed Protective Order. 

The proposed Protective Order Regarding Nonparty Discovery would ensure continued 

compliance with the use of pseudonyms during litigation, while still allowing the parties to 

engage in vigorous and robust case investigation and discovery. Reed will not be disadvantaged 

in any way by the proposed Protective Order. Reed already knows Doe’s and Roe’s true 

identities, and counsel for Reed has been engaging in a factual investigation and discovery fully 

informed with that knowledge. Doe 140 v. The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, CV. 07-

1733-PK (Opinion and Order, February 26, 2008) at *6 (“The prejudice that defendants would 

face if John were permitted to proceed anonymously is significantly lesser, and largely 

amendable to mitigation. Defendants are already cognizant of John’s true identity, and discovery 

has been proceeding.”); New York Blood Center, 213 F.R.D. 108, 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding 

defendants would incur no prejudice in conducting discovery or trying the case if plaintiff 

proceeding using a pseudonym because defendant already knew plaintiff’s name). 

The parties’ investigation and discovery has not been hindered or obstructed by the 

current use of the pseudonyms. Reed’s Initial Disclosures identified 42 individuals likely to 

                                                            

9

 Available at http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/search?discussionid=1769908&search=reed

(last viewed Dec. 23, 2015).

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 7 of 10
PAGE 8 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

have discoverable information about this case; Roe’s identified 11 such individuals. Reed and 

Roe both are aware of the factual underpinnings of the case. Counsel for Reed has already 

deposed Doe and has identified a handful of other potential witnesses for whom depositions are 

sought. The problem is not that Reed cannot conduct its factual investigation or discovery due to 

some lack of knowledge of Plaintiff’s identity, but rather, how counsel should approach 

individuals who have factual knowledge about the case to discuss the case. There is no need to 

lift the Court Order permitting use of the pseudonyms or otherwise ignore its prescriptions. As 

discussed further below, the proposed Protective Order is the proper mechanism to safeguard 

Doe’s and Roe’s identities during discovery. 

C. The Proposed Protective Order is Narrowly Tailored. 

The proposed Protective Order Regarding Nonparty Discovery is narrowly tailored to 

achieve its goals. It permits counsel and the named parties to disclose the identities of Doe and 

Roe to persons who may have factual information about Doe or Roe, in order to conduct their 

investigation or discovery. The parties will be able to approach individual witnesses who have 

knowledge relevant to this case. Counsel and the named parties are directed to show the 

Protective Order to these potential witnesses before confirming the identities of Doe and Roe in 

the lawsuit. These potentials witnesses are directed to not disclose to other persons the identities 

of Doe and Roe, unless counsel confirms that such disclosure is necessary to further the 

litigation. These potential witnesses are further directed not to disclose to the media the true 

identities of Doe and Roe in connection with this lawsuit unless permission is given. 

Notably, the Protective Order does not prohibit any individual from speaking with the 

media or anyone else about their experiences with either Doe or Roe; rather, it just prevents them 

from revealing Doe’s or Roe’s real identities in connection with this lawsuit. The Protective 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 8 of 10
PAGE 9 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Order is narrowly tailored and completely in line with the Court Order allowing Plaintiff to 

proceed using a pseudonym. It is not unduly broad or burdensome. 

Similar protective orders have been adopted in other pseudonymous litigation to handle 

discovery. See, e.g, Doe v. Univ. of the South, No. 4:09-cv-62, Memorandum and Order (E.D. 

Tenn. Aug. 7, 2009) (Lee, U.S.M.J.) (entering Protective Order governing discovery that requires 

that “Defendants SHALL NOT identify any Plaintiff to any nonparty other than as may be 

necessary to defend against this action. Any nonparty who is informed of any Plaintiff’s identity 

SHALL be provided a copy of the protective order previously entered by the Court by the 

disclosing party.”); Does 1-5 v. McCrory, No. 1:13CV711, 2014 WL29352 at *3 (M.D.N.C., Jan. 

3, 2014) (Memorandum Opinion and Order) (ordering that “Individuals to whom disclosure of 

Plaintiffs’ identities is made shall not further disclose that information to any other person 

without first obtaining confirmation from Defendants’ counsel that such disclosure is necessary 

to litigate this action.”). See also Does I through XXXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 

1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court with subject-matter jurisdiction over a case has the 

power to issue orders relating to third parties.”). Such a protective order is warranted here. 

 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 9 of 10
PAGE 10 – OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth in this motion, the Court should enter the proposed Protective 

Order Governing Nonparty Discovery, attached to this motion. 

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2015. 

ANGELI UNGAR LAW GROUP LLC 

 By: s/ David Angeli 

 David H. Angeli, OSB #020244 

 Kristen L. Tranetzki, OSB #115730 

 Telephone: (503) 954-2232 

 

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & 

SULLIVAN LLP 

 Courtney W. Angeli, OSB #941765 

 Robin Bowerfind, OSB #035949 

 Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 60 Filed 12/23/15 Page 10 of 10