Still No Pseudonymity in #TheyLied Defamation Case Over Sexual Assault Allegations |
Free Speech
Eugene Volokh | 1.6.2026 8:33 AM
From yesterday's decision (in my view, a correct decision) by Judge F. Kay Behm (E.D. Mich.) in Doe v. Doe (reaffirming an earlier decision, by denying a motion for reconsideration):
Plaintiff and Defendant are half-siblings and have known each other for over forty years. Plaintiff owns a law firm that operates nationwide, with a primary business address in Oakland County, Michigan.
The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated when Defendant allegedly failed to perform on a contract to work for Plaintiff, and defaulted on a personal loan. A few days after Plaintiff terminated the contract for Defendant to work for Plaintiff, Defendant called Plaintiff's former spouse and told her that 30 years ago, Plaintiff got Defendant drunk and sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff alleges that this statement by Defendant is false and defamatory….
There is generally a presumption of open judicial proceedings in the federal courts; proceeding pseudonymously is the exception rather than the rule. Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally commands that the complaint state the names of all parties. In order to circumvent this requirement, it must be shown that the need for anonymity substantially outweighs the presumption that parties' identities are public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing parties. …
Plaintiff argue[s] that … "[c]ourts generally allow a plaintiff to litigate under a pseudonym in cases containing allegations of sexual assault because they concern highly sensitive and personal subjects." And because Defendant is his........