plaintiff’s concerns do not overcome the constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Plaintiff has availed herself of the court system and in doing so, she has invited public scrutiny of her claims. And as noted, a hostile public reaction and the prospect of embarrassment are insufficient to justify proceeding anonymously.... Finally, plaintiff’s continued anonymity will jeopardize defendants’ legitimate concern that they will be unable to engage in meaningful discovery to explore the factual basis of plaintiff’s allegation that she was offended by defendants’ conduct.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Challenger To County Commission Invocations Cannot Proceed As "Jane Doe"
In Doe v. County of Franklin, Missouri, (ED MO, July 3, 2013), a Missouri federal district court refused to allow plaintiff, who is challenging Christian invocations at County Commission meetings (see prior posting), to continue to pursue the case under a pseudonym. Plaintiff claimed she will be harassed and driven from the community if her name is made public. The court held, however: