Opinion ID: 6498645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pseudonyms in Litigation

Text: ¶55 The circuit court was asked to permit parents' use of pseudonyms in this litigation. The parents made their motion based on concerns that they and their children would be harassed and the litigation disrupted if the parents' names were known. The circuit court found that their concerns were valid. The circuit court said: I agree with the plaintiff, Mr. Berg, in terms of the factual basis they've demonstrated on the legitimacy and sincerity of their concern over the release of their identities. And so as a factual 6 No. 2020AP1032.pdr matter, I believe the plaintiffs have satisfied the court of the need to preserve their confidentiality and, in particular, when analyzed against the backdrop of the relevance or irrelevance of their identity on their ability to challenge the policy in question.[4] However, the circuit court precluded the use of pseudonyms because it concluded that it did not have the authority to authorize their use. The circuit court explained: I'm bound by Wisconsin law, both in terms of what the statutes set forth and the Wisconsin common law as established by the Supreme Court. There is no precedent for what the plaintiff is asking for in the current published appellate case law.[5] ¶56 Here, the circuit required disclosure of the parents' names to the court and to all parties' attorneys in the litigation. The parents do not object to filing an amended complaint that discloses their names for review by the circuit court. However, they do object to permitting review by the parties' attorneys. They contend that a leak of their identities is multiplied by the number of people who have that information. Once the parents' identities are disclosed, there is no way of undoing that disclosure, and as the circuit court found, harassment of the parents and their children and disruption of this litigation likely will follow. ¶57 The circuit court concluded that allowing the parties' attorneys to view the amended complaint was acceptable because the attorneys could be expected to keep the parents' identities confidential. The circuit court did not assess whether any 4 Circuit Ct. Hr'g Tr., May 26, 2020, at 22. 5 Id. 7 No. 2020AP1032.pdr remedy could be provided to the parents and their children when their identities were disclosed. ¶58 Litigation conducted anonymously has been permitted in very similar circumstances in federal district courts. It has been approved by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. For example, in Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 710, 721-24 (7th Cir. 2011), the court concluded that the district court carefully considered detailed affidavits supporting the request to proceed anonymously. Therefore, it affirmed the district court's decision. ¶59 The United States Supreme Court has approved the use of pseudonyms in litigation, explaining, Our decision in Roe v. Wade, establishes [] that, despite her pseudonym, we may accept as true, for this case, Mary Doe's existence and her pregnant state. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 187 (1973), abrogated by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., No. 19-1392, 2022 WL 2276808 (U.S. June 24, 2022). However, we do not need to adopt federal standards in order to permit litigation by pseudonyms in Wisconsin. As I explain below, Wisconsin courts have that authority. ¶60 When justice has required it, we have approved limiting public access to judicial records. For example, in State ex rel. Bilder v. Delavan Twp., 112 Wis. 2d 539, 334 N.W.2d 252 (1983), we explained: The circuit court under its inherent power to preserve and protect the exercise of its judicial function of presiding over the conduct of judicial proceedings has the power to limit public access to judicial records when the administration of justice requires it. 8 No. 2020AP1032.pdr Id. at 556. We also have recognized that the inherent power of the courts 'in many respects goes beyond those conferred by statute.' Id. The party seeking to close court records bears the burden of demonstrating, with particularity, that the administration of justice requires that the court records be closed. Id. at 556-57. ¶61 The command, when administration of justice so requires is at the core of Wisconsin courts' power to proceed as an independent judiciary. This power may require protection of some who are involved in Wisconsin's judicial system. Gabler v. Crime Victims Rts. Bd., 2017 WI 67, ¶58, 376 Wis. 2d 147, 897 N.W.2d 384 (explaining that a concern about possible retraumatization of victims influenced our decision permitting the Department of Justice to withhold requested public records in the administration of justice). In Wisconsin, the administration of justice permits a court to make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense including closing court records. State ex rel. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Am., Inc. v. Cir. Ct. for Milwaukee Cnty., 2000 WI 16, ¶40, 233 Wis. 2d 1, 605 N.W.2d 868. ¶62 The court of appeals, in its review of the circuit court's order that permitted review of the parents names by the attorneys for all parties to this litigation, disagreed with the circuit court's assessment of its own power. It concluded that the circuit court had the power to permit the parents to use pseudonyms in this litigation rather than requiring their actual 9 No. 2020AP1032.pdr names. Doe v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2021 WI App 60, ¶31 n.8, 399 Wis. 2d 102, 963 N.W.2d 823. It said, Wisconsin circuit courts have the power to enter as restrictive a protective order as is warranted, taking into account the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the public interest or the administration of justice. Id. ¶63 However, the court of appeals nevertheless decline[d] to adopt the use of pseudonyms rather than the statutory procedure set out in Wis. Stat. § 801.21(2). Id., ¶31. The court of appeals did not evaluate whether a remedy could be provided to the parents and their children when a disclosure of their identities occurred. It seemed to presume that no such leak would occur. ¶64 The circuit court and the court of appeals appear not to have realistically considered what likely will occur with regard to the parents' identities in today's tell-all world. Even the United States Supreme Court, an institution that has historically demanded the highest levels of integrity and confidentiality, has been subject to unauthorized leaks. These leaks have consequences. One need look no further than this case for examples. Following the leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion in regard to abortion, Wisconsin Family Action, an amicus in this case, had its offices vandalized and attacked with Molotov cocktails.6 Here, the circuit court found that the Press 6 Release, Wisconsin Family Action, Historical Mothers' Day 2022 Attack on Wisconsin Family Action, https://wifamilyaction.org/mothers-day-attack-wfa. 10 No. 2020AP1032.pdr parents and their children likely would be subjected to harassment if parental identities were disclosed.7 ¶65 The judicial system has no remedy for a violation of the confidentiality of an amended complaint that identifies the parents when filed under seal as the circuit court ordered. Unnecessary harm will be inflicted on parents and minor children. There is no compelling reason to ignore the very real possibility of a leak of the parents' identities and the inability of the court to fashion a remedy for the disclosure. In the interests of the administration of justice, the circuit court should have permitted the use of pseudonyms. Gabler, 376 Wis. 2d 147, ¶58; Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 556; Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Am., 233 Wis. 2d 1, ¶40. ¶66 I agree with the conclusion of the court of appeals that the circuit court erred when it applied the wrong legal standard to the parents' motion to proceed by pseudonyms. In so doing, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion. Krier, 288 Wis. 2d 623, ¶23. The circuit court had the power to permit the use of pseudonyms, as the court of appeals explained. Doe 1, 399 Wis. 2d 102, ¶31 n.8. I conclude the circuit court erred, and the court of appeals did so as well, in requiring the parents to disclose their identities to the attorneys for the other parties to the litigation. Neither court evaluated or appreciated that there is no remedy for leaks of parental identities. Both courts acknowledged that disclosure of identities likely would lead to harassment of the parents and 7 Circuit Ct. Decision, May 26, 2020, 22. 11 No. 2020AP1032.pdr their children and disruption of this litigation, but they neglected to recognize or evaluate how that would affect the administration of justice. Stated otherwise, their neglect affected the core of our independence as courts: the administration of justice. It was error to fail to evaluate the effect on the parents and the minor children were identities disclosed.