search3
Tools to fight online harassment

Filing Pseudonymously: Florida

Contents

  1. Florida – Pseudonym Litigation

  1. Florida – Pseudonym Litigation

    1. Introduction

      There may be certain situations in which a WMC plaintiff will seek to protect his or her privacy through pseudonym litigation. Florida courts generally allow a party to proceed anonymously if specific criteria are met.

    2. Text of Statute

      No applicable statutory authority.

    3. Cases

      1. Roe, II v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2001)

        • Procedural Posture: On appeal from lower court’s decision denying plaintiff the right to proceed anonymously on her suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”).

        • Law: Right to proceed anonymously

        • Facts: Plaintiff alleged that she had been injured while receiving an abortion procedure at defendant clinic, and that she was prevented from leaving to obtain other care, resulting in a perforated uterus and substantial hospitalization. Plaintiff alleged a claim under FACE. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision dismissing her claim and denying her the right to proceed anonymously.

        • Outcome: The Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and allowed plaintiff to proceed anonymously. The court first held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that abortion providers had limited her “reproductive health services” within the meaning of FACE where plaintiff alleged they’d restrained her from leaving the facility to receive care at an ER when she had been injured.1 The court further held that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed anonymously because abortion is a “highly sensitive and intensely private matter,” and because plaintiff had offered to disclose her identity to defendants for discovery purposes.2

      2. Plaintiff B. v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2011)

        • Procedural Posture: Appeal from district court decision denying plaintiffs the right to proceed anonymously after newspaper group intervened to require that plaintiffs’ names be released.

        • Law: Right to proceed anonymously

        • Facts: Plaintiffs were four individuals who, while minors, were filmed for footage used in Girls Gone Wild. Years later, they sued for damages stemming from their involvement in the film. Two of the plaintiffs were depicted flashing their breasts, one was depicted participating in a homosexual sexual act with another girl, and the fourth was sexually assaulted and filmed by the Girls Gone Wild owner, who later was arrested for child abuse and prostitution. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously because it determined that plaintiffs would be forced to reveal only “casual and voluntary sexual activity,” which, though embarrassing, does not constitute the type of private activity protected by law.3 The court also gave the plaintiffs’ minor status little weight given that they were no longer minors, and the events had occurred seven years earlier.4

        • Outcome: The court reversed the lower court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The court determined that the lower court had failed to consider the other “judicially recognized factors” at issue: whether the plaintiffs were minors; whether the plaintiffs were threatened with violence or physical harm by proceeding under their own names; and whether plaintiffs’ anonymity posed a unique threat of fundamental fairness to the defendant.5 The court then explained that the behavior was neither “casual” nor “voluntary,” since one plaintiff alleged she had been drugged, and another had unquestionably been assaulted.6 Moreover, the court had improperly disregarded expert testimony re psychological damages caused by labeling, and because the Internet Movie Database (“IMDb”) would “permanently identify” plaintiffs as “flashers,” as evidenced by the IMDb page of a previous plaintiff who had sued Girls Gone Wild and is now permanently identified online as a “flasher.”7

        • Special Notes: The court specifically noted that IMDb would label plaintiffs as the “stars” of these pornographic videos, and a general plea for openness was insufficient to outweigh plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining their privacy in this context.

      3. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992)

        • Procedural Posture: On appeal from lower court decision denying plaintiff the right to proceed anonymously on his employment discrimination suit against the postal service.

        • Law: Right to proceed anonymously.

        • Facts: Plaintiff, a former postal service employee, sued the federal government, alleging that he had been discriminated against on account of his “physical handicap,” i.e., his alcoholism. The district court denied his request to proceed anonymously, and the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion.

        • Outcome: The court affirmed, holding that plaintiff had failed to put forth the required showing to establish a right to proceed anonymously. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that anonymity was required because he was challenging the government, and because he would be forced to disclose information of the utmost secrecy, i.e. his alcoholism. First, the court explained that plaintiff had misinterpreted case law in which a court had determined that a suit against private plaintiffs does not call for anonymity as also standing for the assertion that a suit against the government does.8 Moreover, the court explained that revealing one’s alcoholism, while embarrassing, did not involve a matter “of a highly sensitive and personal nature,” a “real danger of physical harm,” or a situation in which disclosure would lead to injury.9 The court distinguished cases in which courts had protected those with mental illness, homosexuality, transexuality, and other similar situations where a “social stigma” attached.10

        • Special Notes: The court laid out the Fifth Circuit’s three-part analysis for anonymous litigation. The test considers whether: (1) plaintiffs are challenging government activity; (2) plaintiffs must disclose information of the utmost intimacy; and (3) plaintiffs are compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal misconduct, thereby risking criminal liability.11

    4. Practice Pointers

      Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) requires that a complaint state the parties. But federal courts depart from this rule to protect a plaintiff’s privacy interests where he or she establishes that: (1) he or she is challenging government activity; (2) revealing his or her identity would disclose information of the utmost intimacy; or (3) he or she is being compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal liability.”12

      The court should also consider the presence of other factors, such as whether a plaintiff was threatened with violence or physical harm by proceeding under his or her own name, and whether a plaintiff’s anonymity posed a unique threat of fundamental fairness to the defendant

      A decision denying anonymity is a final appealable order under the collateral order doctrine.13

    1. Roe, II v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683-84 (11th Cir. 2001). ↩
    2. Id. at 686-87. ↩
    3. Plaintiff B. v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2011). ↩
    4. Id. ↩
    5. Id. at 1316. ↩
    6. Id. ↩
    7. Id. at 1318. ↩
    8. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323-24 (11th Cir. 1992). ↩
    9. Id. at 324. ↩
    10. Id. ↩
    11. Id. at 323 (citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1981)).  Fifth Circuit precedent issued prior to the Eleventh Circuit’s September 30, 1981 formation is binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.  See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1208 (11th Cir. 1981). ↩
    12. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185. ↩
    13. Id. at 183. ↩
    ↑ Back to top