I confess I wasn't expecting this, but I guess that's why I don't get paid the big bucks! Here's the plaintiff's motion to proceed under the pseudonym "Jane Doe": Download Doe-v-Kipnis-et-al-motion-to-proceed-under-a-pseudonym. And here is the opposition motion by the defendants: Download Doe-v-Kipnis-et-al-reponse-to-motion. I would have thought, as noted previously, that defendants will move to dismiss the lawsuit in part on the grounds that Kipnis's book identified Doe only with a pseudonym, thus could not have defamed her. But defendants' response to the plaintiffs' motion here seems to concede that, of course, everyone knows who the plaintiff is and that, indeed, it is a matter of public record in the federal reporters no less due to prior litigation related to these events. I guess, but I do not know, that it's standard practice in cases like this to try to force the plaintiff to proceed under her own name in order to make the whole proceedings maximally unpleasant for her, which strengthens the defendants' position, but as I said, that's just my guess.
Thoughts from any of my law readers about what's going on here?
