The Latest Breaking News from Doe

But that’s not adequate reason to allow them to litigate pseudonymously, a district court rules.

From Levy v. Shuster (né Doe v. Roe), handed down Nov. 28 but just unsealed yesterday, following the expiration of plaintiff's time to appeal: Background. According to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand …, Plaintiff and Defendant dated for nearly a year while enrolled at Tulane…

"[T]he wide-ranging conspiracy Doe posits, one that tormented an ordinary law student for months on end using actors, poison, and a weapon that can send electricity wirelessly through brick walls, is too far beyond the pale of human experience to credit without supporting evidence, of which Doe has provided none."

The court required the university defendants to keep plaintiff's identity confidential (common in pseudonymous Title IX cases), but refused to extend this to media, students, and others.

under California's "anti-SLAPP" statute (which allows for prompt dismissal of claims brought based on certain kinds of speech).

When there's a movie, there's sometimes a twist that blows your mind. Let's talk about eighteen that have blown mine.

From D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman's decision two weeks ago in Doe v. President & Fellows of Middlebury College: Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against numerous defendants [including American University, George Washington University, and Middlebury College -EV] alleging inter alia employment discrimination, harassment, forced labor, trafficking in labor or commercial…

"Applicant's warning of a prima facie violation of Japanese law's privacy protections fails to constitute a harm severe enough" to justify pseudonymity.

Like other features of legal procedure—such as the jury trial, the mechanism for appointing judges, the availability of appeal—pseudonymity both deeply affects the fairness of litigation and, often, the substantive outcomes.

The question remains unsettled, with lots of courts decisions on both sides.

From Doe v. N.Y. City Dep't of Ed., decided today by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil (S.D.N.Y.): This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff has worked for the DOE since 2012. Plaintiff alleges that she is "psychologically disabled" and was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and unlawful retaliation at work…. [Plaintiff] contends…