Opinion ID: 786422
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Protective Order

Text: 6 The Board asserts that the district court erred by granting Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order allowing them to proceed pseudonymously. As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). However, we may excuse plaintiffs from identifying themselves in certain circumstances. Several considerations determine whether a plaintiff's privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. They include: (1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge governmental activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs to disclose information of the utmost intimacy; (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and (4) whether the plaintiffs are children. Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir.1981). We review the district court's decision to grant a protective order for an abuse of discretion. Samad v. Jenkins, 845 F.2d 660, 663 (6th Cir.1988). 7 This suit — challenging a government activity — forces Plaintiffs to reveal their beliefs about a particularly sensitive topic that could subject them to considerable harassment. [R]eligion is perhaps the quintessentially private matter. Although they do not confess either illegal acts or purposes, the [plaintiffs] have, by filing suit, made revelations about their personal beliefs and practices that are shown to have invited an opprobrium analogous to the infamy associated with criminal behavior. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. For instance, in a letter to the editor of a local paper, one Nancy Rogers wrote: 8 [Y]ou are [] cowards because you won't give us your name. You know the people in Rhea County would come up to your face and tell you what we think of you. I would love to come face to face with you because yes I would tell you what I thought of you and I would let my sons tell you too. You have hurt my sons and I will not let no one [sic] hurt one of my children. We might not know you but someone higher does [,] and yes you will answer to him. 9 Indeed, in an article about the lawsuit, the principal of Rhea County High School stated that if he had known the person challenging the BEM, he would have tried to alert him ... I'd have said: `Look do you want to cause your family trouble? This is a rural, conservative place, and very emotional about religion. Attack religion and crusades begin. But you need to follow your own conscience.'  10 Further, this case is brought on behalf of very young children, to whom we grant a heightened protection. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. (The gravity of the danger posed by the threats of retaliation against the [plaintiffs] for filing this lawsuit must also be assessed in light of the special vulnerability of these child-plaintiffs.). 1 11 The Board also asserts that the district court's protective order hindered its ability to make full discovery, contending that the protective order allowed counsel to know only Plaintiffs' names, residency status, taxpayer information, and school enrollment status. This characterization of the district court's order is incorrect. Although the district court's protective order limited the scope of discovery as to other persons beyond Defendants' counsel of record, it placed no limitation on defense counsel's scope of discovery. 12 Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Board's characterization of the trial court's protective order is accurate, it is unclear how this would have hindered its preparation for trial. The only issue for which facts about Plaintiffs would have been crucial is the Board's challenge to Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action. Even under their narrow characterization of the trial court's order, Defendants would have been able to obtain all the information necessary to address the standing inquiry at trial: Plaintiffs' names, residency status, taxpayer information and school enrollment status. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Plaintiffs to litigate pseudonymously.