Doe v. Browngreer PLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Gee v. Women's Health Care Ctr.

    MISC. ACTION NO. 18-4793 SECTION "S" (2) (E.D. La. Jun. 25, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    I disagree with the issuance of these protective orders insofar as they permit the plaintiff doctors to proceed anonymously. See Plaintiff Doctor v. Hospital Service District #3, 2019 WL 351492, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2019) (citing S. Methodist Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying request to use fictitious names where mere economic harm or harm to professional reputations at stake); Doe v. BrownGreer PLC, 2014 WL 4404033, at *2-3 (E.D. La. Sept. 5, 2014) (denying request to use fictitious name when HIV-positive plaintiff claimed he would have difficulty finding new employment)). If a doctor or any other party specifically sought an order of this court seeking to keep their identities a secret, it would be denied on the current record applying the standards set out in Plaintiff Doctor, cited above.

  2. Doctor v. Hospital Service District #3

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-7945 SECTION M (3) (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, public opinion about these issues "has become more diverse and accepting" in recent times, weighing in favor of "the public's interest in open judicial proceedings," even in such cases. Doe v. BrownGreer PLC, 2014 WL 4404033, at *2-3 (E.D. La. Sept. 5, 2014). It is also inappropriate to proceed anonymously when mere economic harm or harm to one's professional reputation is at stake.

  3. Doe v. Merritt Hospitality, LLC

    353 F. Supp. 3d 472 (E.D. La. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that an EEOC intake questionnaire may be deemed a charge of discrimination if it “both satisfies the regulatory requirements of a charge and may be ‘reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee.'”

    Although HIV-positive status is an intimate fact of a sensitive nature, a growing number of courts recognize that public opinion about it has become more accepting in recent years. Doe v. BrownGreer PLC , 2014 WL 4404033, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 5, 2014) ("public opinion about ... HIV positive status has become more diverse and accepting during the [last] 35 years"); Doe v. Pentax of America, Inc. , 2012 WL 3128968, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2012) (court denied HIV-infected plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously, observing that plaintiff "has not shown that [HIV-related] stigma still exists or that he is likely to face any harm as a result of being named in this suit"); see alsoMateer v. Ross, Suchoff, Egert, Hankin Maidenbaum & Mazel, P.C. , 1997 WL 171011, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1997) (civil plaintiff with HIV not permitted to proceed anonymously in light of strongly-held principles favoring open judicial fora); Doe v. Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Servs., Inc. , 162 F.R.D. 418, 422 (D. Mass. 1995) (plaintiff who feared she might be HIV-infected not permitted to proceed under pseudonym in sexual harassment case). Doe will not face any greater threat of retaliation than a typical employment discrimination plaintiff that proceeds under hi

  4. Doe v. Griffon Mgmt. LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2626 SECTION I (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2014)   Cited 9 times

    Compare S.G. v. Mears Transp. Grp., Inc., No. 14-917, 2014 WL 4637139, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2014) (granting motion to proceed under a pseudonym because "Plaintiff's HIV-related privacy interests outweigh the need for disclosure in this case"); W.G.A. v. Priority Pharmacy, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 616, 617 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (allowing use of a pseudonym because the plaintiff's AIDS is a "personal matter of the utmost intimacy" and could subject the plaintiff to discrimination if publicized); Roe v. City of Milwaukee, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1129-30 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (holding that "the plaintiff's HIV-positive status is a compelling reason for allowing him to proceed under a pseudonym" based on "stigma"); Patient v. Corbin, 37 F. Supp. 2d 433, 434 (E.D. Va. 1998) (allowing use of a pseudonym because of the "significant stigma" attached to the plaintiff's HIV-positive status), with Doe v. BrownGreer PLC, No. 14-1980, 2014 WL 4404033, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 5, 2014) (Wilkinson, M.J.) (denying a similar motion because the plaintiff did not establish a particular threat of retaliation outweighing "the public's interest in open judicial proceedings" and "basic fairness") (alteration omitted); Doe v. Pentax of Am., Inc., No. 12-1171, 2012 WL 3128968, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2012) (similar); Mateer v. Ross, Suchoff, Egert, Hankin Maidenbaum & Mazel, P.C., No. 96-1756, 1997 WL 171011, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1997) (similar). The Court has considered both the public interest in open proceedings and plaintiff's asserted interest in maintaining the confidentiality of her HIV-positive status.