Survivors of sexual violence should not be forced to choose between justice and privacy. Using pseudonyms in lawsuits is a crucial protection against retraumatization and public scrutiny.
The day that a survivor of sexual abuse files a lawsuit is a difficult and painful day, but also one that starts a journey toward justice.
For many plaintiffs, stepping forward is not only the start of a legal proceeding but also an act of immense courage. It often involves sharing deeply personal and traumatic experiences with the court and, potentially, the public. This is why plaintiffs must have the option and privacy protection to have their cases filed under pseudonyms.
Defense teams frequently invoke the principle of transparency in judicial proceedings as a strategic argument for requiring plaintiffs to disclose their identities, framing it as essential to upholding the integrity of the legal process when, really, it is a mechanism used to limit and silence the survivor’s path forward. Defense counsel’s argument often hinges on the idea that public accountability requires all parties to be identifiable. However, this tactic disregards the vital purpose of using a pseudonym in a lawsuit: to safeguard a survivor’s privacy and dignity.
This tactic by the defense aims to gain an unfair advantage by exploiting the plaintiff’s hope of anonymity following a traumatic experience that led to the lawsuit. It diverts attention from the core issues of the lawsuit, drags out pretrial proceedings, drives up costs for plaintiffs and creates obstacles designed to pressure them into dropping their case.
As an attorney handling sexual assault and institutional abuse cases, I have seen defense teams argue—and courts rule—that plaintiffs must disclose their identities, compelling them to do so in deeply personal and often traumatic matters. Transparency should not come at the expense of a plaintiff’s ability to safely pursue their claims under a pseudonym, as the court’s commitment to fairness must balance open proceedings with the plaintiff’s right to privacy and protection from potential harm.
Defense counsel’s argument often hinges on the idea that public accountability requires all parties to be identifiable. However, this tactic disregards the vital purpose of using a pseudonym in a lawsuit: to safeguard a survivor’s privacy and dignity.
The History of “Doe”
The pseudonym “John Doe” originated in 16th-century England and became widely used in British legal terminology by the 18th century as a way for plaintiffs to protect their identities in sensitive cases. Its female counterpart, “Jane Doe,” first appeared in the 18th century.
The Doe system has been adopted by federal and state courts to protect privacy rights in sensitive matters, including religion, assault, minors, homosexuality, abortion, trade secrets and the attorney-client privilege. The most famous female pseudonym case was the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. The case was brought by Norma McCorvey under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” a derivative of Jane Doe. McCorvey used the pseudonym to protect her identity, seeking only to win her legal battle rather than become a public figure or activist. While some survivors find empowerment in having their name associated with a court case, others do not—and the decision should rest solely with the survivor.
The “Doe” Process in Practice
Increasingly, survivors who file under a pseudonym must face the impossible choice between privacy and justice.
This issue was at the center of a recent high-profile case against Sean “Diddy” Combs, later including Jay-Z, in which U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that a woman suing under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” must reveal her real name or face dismissal of her lawsuit. The plaintiff, who accused Combs of raping her in 2004 at a Manhattan hotel when she was 19, sought anonymity in the Southern District of New York. However, the judge stated that her desire for privacy did not outweigh the “customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.” This ruling rejected claims that name disclosure would cause mental harm, as “public humiliation” was deemed insufficient to justify anonymity.
On Feb. 14, 2025, Jane Doe withdrew the lawsuit.
In a statement, Jay-Z wrote, “The 1-800 lawyer gets to file a suit hiding behind Jane Doe, and when they quickly realize that the money grab is going to fail, they get to walk away.”
This statement not only dismisses Jane Doe’s claims as opportunistic but also exemplifies the broader hostility survivors face when coming forward—especially against powerful men. By framing the lawsuit as a “money grab,” Jay-Z’s comments reinforce the very stigma that makes anonymity so crucial for victims of sexual violence. His words, echoed by those who champion transparency over survivor protection, highlight the impossible choice plaintiffs must make: endure public scrutiny, potential harassment and personal risk, or abandon their pursuit of accountability altogether.
Preserving Privacy in the Courtroom
The use of pseudonyms does not compromise the fundamental integrity of legal proceedings. Defendants retain the right to full disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity during litigation, ensuring their ability to conduct a thorough investigation and mount an effective defense. This permits the defense to have all the necessary facts but limits the harm to the survivor in the public eye.
In today’s digital age, the importance of this protection cannot be understated. The rise in online and social media discussions of cases can worsen survivors’ trauma, amplifying their pain as their stories are dissected publicly. This prolonged publicity forces survivors to relive their abuse, leaving a permanent digital footprint that extends their harm long after the legal process ends.
Recognizing these risks, some states have taken steps to codify pseudonym legal proceedings. For example, under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-401(e)), parties may appear under fictitious names if they can show good cause. This provision acknowledges that in certain circumstances, the potential harm to a plaintiff’s privacy and well-being outweighs the public’s interest in knowing their identity. However, other states lack similar rules, creating a patchwork system where a survivor’s ability to pursue justice can depend entirely on where their case is filed.
Ultimately, justice should never come at the expense of safety and potential retaliation. Allowing plaintiffs to use pseudonyms provides a vital pathway for survivors to pursue justice on their own terms.
