ILNews

Judge: Attorney can't sue using pseudonym

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northern District magistrate judge has again denied an attorney's motion to proceed with a lawsuit under a pseudonym, finding the type of injury the attorney may suffer as a result of suit doesn't rise to the level to justify anonymity.

This is the third time U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich has denied the attorney's motion to use a pseudonym in her lawsuit, Jane Noe v. Jennifer Carlos, et al., No. 2:08-cv-227. The court denied this latest motion Nov. 26.

The attorney was detained in January 2008 in a facility for people who may be mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled. She claims she was held beyond the 72-hour limit, forced to undress for a physical examination, forced to teleconference with her parents, and denied an initial examination with the staff psychiatrist until after a day had passed.

The attorney wants to proceed with her suit against Porter Memorial Hospital and its employees under the pseudonym Jane Noe to prevent her from public ridicule and embarrassment, and to protect her medical records.

The magistrate judge considered the factors in determining whether a plaintiff's interest in privacy is so significant as to outweigh the presumption of favoring public identification, as outlined in Doe v. Indiana Black Expo, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 131, 140, (S.D Ind. 1996), and ruled Noe didn't meet the factors to require anonymity. He also wrote that her medical records could be sealed.

Magistrate Judge Rodovich also noted the prejudice against the defendants in this case if the attorney is allowed to proceed with the pseudonym. Noe showed a lack of good judgment by sending surveys that explore the application of the Indiana Code under which she was detained to physicians working for the defendants, the magistrate judge wrote, adding in a footnote that her contact with the doctors under the guise of "psychological research" strongly suggests improper ex parte contact.

Noe's accusations against the defendants include their names in the caption and they, too, have an interest in their reputations.

"By her ex parte communications, Noe has shown the precise prejudice that the use of a pseudonym here would permit," he wrote.

The magistrate judge ordered Noe to file an amended complaint under her true name consistent with the rules or else her case would be dismissed. Noe has until Dec. 5 to file the amended complaint without the pseudonym.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT