Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThis opinion was issued Friday after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jane Doe v. Kristan Reibel, Jane Doe v. Kristan Reibel, Beauty + Grace Carmel, LLC, and Amber Stanley
25A-CT-258
Civil. Interlocutory appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court. Judge Jonathan M. Brown. Affirms the trial court’s denial of two plaintiffs’ motions to proceed pseudonymously and its order striking their complaints. Holds that requests to proceed under pseudonyms are governed by the Indiana Access to Court Records Rules and that the plaintiffs failed to establish extraordinary circumstances under Rule 6 warranting exclusion of their names from public access. Finds Indiana Code § 35-40-5-12 does not apply because the case is civil and voyeurism is not classified as a sex crime under the statute. Concludes the plaintiffs did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that public disclosure of their identities would create a significant risk of substantial harm or that their privacy interests outweighed the constitutional presumption of open courts. Further holds that, because the plaintiffs were not entitled to proceed anonymously, the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s Trial Rule 12(F) motions to strike the complaints. Appellant’s attorney: Ashley N. Hadler. Appellee’s attorneys: Christopher P. Jeter, Alexandra M. Dowers.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.