Plaintiffs' Opposition to Compel Doe Disclosure — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers

Record facts

No. 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB · Doc. 33 · 2021-10-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Julio C. Gomez, Esq. 
GOMEZ LLC ATTORNEY AT LAW 
1451 Cooper Road 
Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 
Tel 908.789.1080 
Fax 908.789.1081 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, INC., 
PETER CORDI, RAELYNNE MILLER, 
KAYLA MATEO, ADRIANA PINTO, 
JAKE BOTHE, AND DOES 1-13, 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
Case No. 3:21-cv-15333 
(ZNQ-TJB) 
 
-against- 
 
 
 
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY 
OF NEW JERSEY, BOARD OF 
GOVERNORS, RUTGERS SCHOOL OF 
BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH 
SCIENCES, CHANCELLOR BRIAN L. 
STROM, PRESIDENT JONATHAN 
HOLLOWAY, in their official capacities. 
 
 
Defendants 
 
 
 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY 
WITH FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) AND APPEAR PUBLICLY IN THIS ACTION 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 1 of 20 PageID: 421

 
i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…..…………………………………………………..ii 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………..…….……………1 
 
ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………8 
 
I. 
PLAINTIFFS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS TO APPEAR BY 
PSEUDONYM IN THIS CASE..…………………………………...……….8 
 
II. 
THE FACTORS DISFAVORING ANONIMITY DO NOT DISQUALIFY 
THE DOE PLAINTIFFS FROM PROCEEDING ANONYMOUSLY 
……………………………………………………………………………...15 
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………..17 
 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 2 of 20 PageID: 422

 
ii 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Cases 
 
Doe v. Megless, 
654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011) ……………………………………………….8, 9 
 
Doe v. Rider University, 
Civ. No. 16-4882, 2018 WL 3756950, (D.N.J. May 18, 2021) …………………12 
 
L.A. v. Hoffman,  
Civ. No. 14-6985, 2015 WL 4461852 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) ………………12, 13 
 
Smith v. United States Office of Personnel Management,  
Civ. No. 2:13-cv-5235, 2014 WL 12768838 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2014) ……………9 
 
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington-Arnold School 
District, Civ. No. 2:12-cv-1319, 2012 WL 6629643 (W.D. Pa. 2012) …………..15 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 3 of 20 PageID: 423

Plaintiff Children’s Health Defense, Inc. (“CHD”) and Doe Plaintiffs 2, 3, 6, 
7, 9, and 13,1 through their undersigned attorney, hereby respond to Defendants’ 
motion for an Order compelling them comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) and to 
appear publicly in this action, not by way of pseudonym.  For the reasons that 
follow, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court deny Defendants’ motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
Defendants’ motion appears written in a vacuum that ignores completely the 
public discourse that blames, without scientific proof, the unvaccinated for current 
rates of COVID-19.  That discourse includes violence, intimidation and ostracism: 
• MSNBC guest Frank Schaeffer stating that those who are “anti-vaccine” are 
“bio terrorists” who should be the target of “Drone strikes.”2 
• Mayor de Blasio, announcing his “vaccine passport” for New York City, 
declared that “If you want to participate in our society fully, you’ve got to 
get vaccinated.”3 
• On ABC News, commentator Margaret Hoover declared that government, 
by withholding all benefits from the unvaccinated, should “just make it 
 
1 To avoid any risk of disclosure of their identity Plaintiff Does 1, 4, 5, and 10 are 
voluntarily withdrawing from this lawsuit; their withdrawal shall be noted in 
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint; Plaintiff Does 8 and 11 have decided to 
appear publicly and shall be named in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. 
2 See https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/10/msnbc-guest-calls-drone-
strikes-americans-opposed-vaccine-mandates/  
3 See https://twitter.com/nycmayor/status/1422568446001287171?lang=en ; 
compare with Letter from New York State Assembly Members calling for 
alternatives to mandates https://www.scribd.com/document/523955400/COVID-
Vaccination-Letter#from embed 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 4 of 20 PageID: 424

 
2
almost impossible for people to—to live their lives without being protected 
and protecting the rest of us.”4 
• On CNN, commentator Don Lemon stated to Chris Cuomo that “[If ou] 
don’t get the vaccine, you can’t go to the supermarket. Don’t have the 
vaccine, can’t go to the ball game. Don’t have a vaccine, can’t go to work. 
You don’t have a vaccine, can’t come here. No shirt, no shoes, no service.”5 
• On his late night “comedy” show Jimmy Kimmel stated that the 
unvaccinated who contract COVID should be allowed to die rather than 
being admitted to the hospital: “Rest in peace, wheezy.”6   
• In The Week, Ryan Cooper declared that “Anti-vaxxers” (i.e. people who 
decline the COVID vaccines) “should be exiled from society until they get 
their shots, and their efforts to intimidate people against controlling the 
pandemic should be met with massive resistance.”7 
Other outlets are engaged in a blame game against the unvaccinated: 
• AMA Calls for Vaccine Mandates; ‘Blame the Unvaccinated Folks’; Colo. 
Plague Death.8 
• “It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated – they are robbing the rest of us of our 
freedoms.”9 
 
4 See https://www.yahoo.com/now/vaccine-mandatory-those-receiving-
government-184100345.html  
5 See https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/27/cnns-don-lemon-says-dont-get-the-
vaccine-no-supermarket-work-ball-game-or-freedom/  
6 See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-kimmel-ivermectin-covid-19-
pandemic-hospitals/   
7 See https://theweek.com/politics/1003600/anti-vaxxers-coddling  
8 See Shannon Firth, AMA Calls for Vaccine Mandates; ‘Blame the Unvaccinated 
Folks’ ; Colo. Plague Death, MEDPAGE TODAY (July 26, 2021) available at 
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/93746  
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 5 of 20 PageID: 425

 
3
• “In our view: Unvaccinated to Blame for Covid Surge”10 
• Editorial: Bring on the crackdown.  The unvaccinated must be held 
accountable11 
• The Anger Toward Unvaccinated People Is Personal for Some Who Got 
Breakthrough Covid.12 
The discourse attacking the unvaccinated even includes statements by the President 
of the United States, in which he pivoted from a war on the coronavirus to a war on 
the unvaccinated with the following remarks about the unvaccinated: they are not 
“doing the right thing.”  They are “keeping us from turning the corner.”  They are 
“blocking public health.” “The refusal [of the unvaccinated] has cost all of us,” 
 
9  See Amanda Marcote, It’s OK to Blame the Unvaccinated – They are Robbing 
Us of Our Freedoms, Salon (August 12, 2021), available at 
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/12/its-ok-to-blame-the-unvaccinated--they-are-
robbing-the-rest-of-us-of-our-freedoms/  
10 See Editorial, In Our View: Unvaccinated to Blame for Covid Surge, The 
Columbian (August 17, 2021) available at 
https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/aug/17/in-our-view-unvaccinated-to-
blame-for-virus-surge/  
11 See Editorial, Bring Down the Crackdown, The Unvaccinated Must Be Held 
Accountable, Los Angeles Times (July 29, 2021) available at 
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-07-29/editorial-bring-on-the-
crackdown-the-unvaccinated-must-be-held-accountable  
12 See Jackie Fortier on All Things Considered, NPR (National Public Radio) 
(August 13, 2021, broadcast) available at 
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/13/1027537422/the-anger-toward-unvaccinated-
people-is-personal-for-some-who-got-breakthrough-c  
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 6 of 20 PageID: 426

 
4
Biden said.13  Addressing approximately 80 million Americans who have refused 
the vaccine, the President said, as if speaking to unruly children, “our patience is 
wearing thin.”  He went further still, empathizing with the anger and anxiety of 
those who’ve been vaccinated and thus presumably protected. He threatened, “We 
cannot let the unvaccinated undo this progress,” although he muddled the words in 
delivery.  Biden also took a potshot at dissenting doctors, suggesting they are 
“conspiracy theorists,” not “real doctors.” His comments echoed the calls of others, 
including the Federation of State Medical Boards, to take away the medical 
licenses of doctors who dare to raise questions about vaccine safety.14 
Indeed, the catchphrase, “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” was dominating 
the social discourse on the evening news this past summer when Plaintiffs filed this 
action.15  A simple Google search of the phrase unearths a litany of articles 
acknowledging the prevalence of this idea in the public consciousness.  When this 
action was filed, the majority of the student Plaintiffs appeared by pseudonym 
 
13 See Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense Responds to Bidens’ 
“Declaration of War Against the Unvaccinated”, The Defender (September 13, 
2021), available at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mary-holland-chd-
bidens-war-against-unvaccinated/  
14 Id. 
15 See Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Questioning a Catchphrase: ‘Pandemic of the 
Unvaccinated,’ ABCNews (September 1, 2021) available at 
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/sound-bite-reexamined-pandemic-
unvaccinated-79760265  
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 7 of 20 PageID: 427

 
5
because they feared ostracism and retaliation by Rutgers, the faculty, the student 
body, the media and the public.  Verified Complaint ¶ 12 (Dkt. 1).  There is 
nothing speculative about these students’ fears in light of the prevailing social 
discourse.  Indeed, when this matter was filed, and Rutgers’ student newspaper, 
The Daily Targum, published an article reporting upon the lawsuit, its Instagram 
page published social media comments that included ridicule and derision of some 
of the Plaintiffs in this case.16 
In Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (to be filed tomorrow) Doe Plaintiffs 
2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 13 shall aver as follows: 
Doe 2: 
Doe 2 brings claims anonymously because Doe 2 fears retaliation by 
Rutgers and dismissal from Rutgers if Doe 2’s identity as a plaintiff is 
revealed; Doe 2 fears harassment by other students, professors or the 
public and from social media; Doe 2 fears physical attacks; Doe 2 
fears the loss of friends and acquaintances; Doe 2 fears jeopardizing 
Doe 2’s prospects to gain admission into graduate-degree programs; 
and Doe 2 fears consequences to Doe 2’s career prospects.  Doe 2 
possesses these fears because Doe 2 has read about such treatment of 
the unvaccinated around country and around the world; reactions of 
government, the media, unions and Rutgers have created a polarized 
environment pitting the vaccinated against the unvaccinated and 
accusing the unvaccinated of spreading disease and prolonging the 
pandemic; in Doe 2’s view proponents of vaccines are so angry and 
irrational they have resorted to hostility and violence against the 
unvaccinated; Rutgers’ own propaganda to coerce vaccination 
included statements that it was “our shared responsibility” to 
vaccinate, disregarding personal freedom, informed consent, medical 
 
16 See https://www.instagram.com/p/CS2BXnftqVN/?utm medium=copy link  
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 8 of 20 PageID: 428

 
6
freedom and freedom of thought.  Doe 2 shall withdraw from this 
lawsuit if not permitted to proceed anonymously.  First Amended 
Comlaint ¶ 19. 
 
Doe 3: 
Doe 3 brings claims anonymously because Doe 3 fears that if Doe 3’s 
identity becomes public Doe 3 will be discriminated against including 
but not limited to being pressured personally to take the vaccine, 
jeopardizing Doe 3’s religious exemption, jeopardizing Doe 3’s 
ability to attend classes at Rutgers, jeopardizing equal treatment in 
grading and course assignments from professors, jeopardizing Doe 3’s 
prospects of gaining admission to graduate-degree programs and 
future employment opportunities with Rutgers.  Aside from routine 
Covid testing, Doe 3 attributes the lack of any overt discrimination or 
bullying to having proceeded in this matter anonymously.  If Rutgers 
decides that vaccinated students do not have to mask, Doe 3 fears 
reprisals since masking will out his vaccination status on campus.  
Doe 3 shall withdraw from this lawsuit if not permitted to proceed 
anonymously.  First Amended Complaint, ¶ 20. 
Doe 6: 
Doe 6 brings claims anonymously because Doe 6 fears reprisals and 
discrimination if Doe 6’s identity is revealed; Doe 6 attributes the lack 
of any such treatment to Doe 6’s refusal to discuss vaccination status 
with her peers; Doe 6 would like to complete her studies at Rutgers 
without the risk or threat of a professor or student treating Doe 6 
differently because of Doe 6’s religious and medical beliefs; Doe 6 
has no doubt that if Doe 6’s identity is revealed, Doe 6 will be treated 
differently; Doe 6 has overheard students and professors at Rutgers 
blame the unvaccinated for spikes in COVID-19 rates and prolonging 
the pandemic; the unvaccinated are mistreated and shamed publicly 
on television networks, social media and barred from places of public 
accommodation (e.g. restaurants, performance venues, etc.); the 
unvaccinated are vilified for not doing their part, for lacking 
intelligence or common sense; government and media actively 
encourage the vaccinated to pressure and coerce the unvaccinated by 
discriminating against them; Doe 6 also wishes to preserve the option 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 9 of 20 PageID: 429

 
7
of applying to a graduate degree program at Rutgers and does not 
wish to jeopardize that prospect.  First Amended Complaint ¶ 23. 
 
 
 
Doe 7: 
Doe 7 brings claims anonymously because Doe 7 fears that Rutgers 
faculty and students will not take kindly to dissent based on Doe 7’s 
observations of their discussions of COVID, the vaccines, and 
masking requirements which are critical of anyone who does not 
comply.  Doe 7 keeps a low profile on campus to avoid unnecessary 
and fruitless conflict.  Given the prominence of cancel culture Doe 7 
would refuses to “come out” as having non-politically correct 
opinions.  Doe 7 fears the emotional stress that would ensue if it were 
generally known that Doe 7 is not vaccinated and suing Rutgers 
would interfere with Doe 7’s academic studies and graduation 
schedule.  First Amended Complaint ¶ 24. 
 
Doe 9: 
Doe 9 brings claims anonymously because Doe 9 plans to apply for 
admission to a PhD program next year, at Rutgers and other 
universities and fears jeopardizing admission into such programs.  
First Amended Complaint ¶ 26. 
 
Doe 13: 
Doe 13 brings claims anonymously because Doe 13 is fearful of 
retaliation from other students or Rutgers staff after seeing numerous 
comments on social media since this lawsuit was filed; Doe 13 has 
seen reports of people threatening to harm the unvaccinated and is 
reluctant to press forward with Doe 13’s claims publicly because Doe 
13 is a freshman living off-campus; additionally, there is a possibility 
that Doe 13 may pursue a graduate-degree program at Rutgers and 
does not want to jeopardize her prospects for admission. Doe 13 shall 
withdraw from this lawsuit if not permitted to proceed anonymously.  
First Amended Complaint ¶ 30. 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 10 of 20 PageID: 430

 
8
These students’ fears, must be measured against the backdrop of a social 
discourse that vilifies and blames them for exercising their right to informed 
consent and religious freedom to refuse a vaccine whose safety and efficacy has 
not been fully tested and understood, and which has reportedly caused more than 
700,000 adverse event and 16,000+ deaths reported on VAERS.17  Their fears must 
also take into account the fact that their status as vaccinated or unvaccinated is a 
confidential medical matter that is not subject to general public disclosure. 
ARGUMENT 
I. 
PLAINTIFFS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS TO APPEAR BY 
PSEUDONYM IN THIS CASE. 
To appear in this action by pseudonym, Doe Plaintiffs must show “both (1) a 
fear of severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is reasonable.”  Doe v. 
Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011).  In Megless, the Third Circuit set forth 
a multi-factor balancing test for courts to assess whether “a litigant’s reasonable 
fear of severe harm outweighs the public’s interest in open-judicial proceedings.” 
That balancing test includes six factors in favor of anonymity: 
1. The extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept 
confidential; 
 
17 See Megan Redshaw, 2 More Teen Deaths Reported to VAERS, As FDA Panel 
Recommends Moderna and J&J Booster Shots, The Defender (October 15, 2021) 
available at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-cdc-covid-vaccine-
injuries-deaths-fda-booster-shots/  
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 11 of 20 PageID: 431

 
9
2. The bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, 
and the substantiality of those bases; 
3. The magnitude of the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of 
the litigant’s identity; 
4. Whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or 
otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the 
litigant’s identities; 
5. The undesireability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party 
and attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being 
publicly identified; 
6. Whether the party seeking to sue pseudonymously has illegitimate, 
ulterior motives. 
Megless, 654 F.3d at 409.  “On the other side of the scale, factors disfavoring 
anonymity include: 
1. The universal level of public interest in access to the identities of the 
litigants; 
2. Whether, because of the subject matter of this litigation, the status of 
the litigant as a public figure, or otherwise, there is a particularly 
strong interest in knowing the litigant’s identities, beyond the public’s 
interest which is normally obtained; and 
3. Whether the opposition to pseudonym by counsel, the public, or the 
press is illegitimately motivated.” 
Id.  Additionally, Megless cautions that this is not a “comprehensive” list and that 
trial courts “will always be required to consider those [other] factors which the 
facts of the particular case implicates.”  Id.; see also Smith v. United States Office 
of Personnel Management, Civ. No. 2:13-cv-5235, 2014 WL 12768838 (E.D. Pa. 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 12 of 20 PageID: 432

 
10 
Jan. 21, 2014) (holding that plaintiff could proceed anonymously because he has 
“reasonable fears about the status of his current and future job prospects”). 
 
Applying these factors to the instant case, the balance tips in favor of 
anonymity. 
1. The extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept 
confidential 
The Doe plaintiffs have been kept confidential since the inception of this 
litigation.  The Doe plaintiffs have not been the subject of any motion practice or 
participated in any press reporting on this case when it was filed.  Doe plaintiffs 
were not interviewed by the media or participated in any publicity concerning the 
case.  Moreover, the Doe Plaintiffs have never disclosed to defendants who they 
are.  Granted, as students, the Doe Plaintiffs submitted and received religious 
exemptions from Rutgers, but they neither requested nor received those 
exemptions as litigants in this action.  “Courts have found that a litigant has made 
substantial efforts to maintain anonymity where that litigant has limited his 
disclosure of the sensitive information to few other people.”  Doe v. Rider 
University, 2018 WL 3756950, Civ. No. 16-4882 (D.N.J. May 18, 2021) at *3.  In 
this case, this factor weighs in favor of anonymity. 
 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 13 of 20 PageID: 433

 
11 
2. The bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, 
and the substantiality of those bases 
The Doe plaintiffs’ principal concern is social ostracism and retaliation.  All 
of the Doe plaintiffs are concerned about public perception; they fear 
discrimination and harassment if their identities are revealed; they fear retaliation 
and ridicule from professors and classmates.  Students posted derogatory 
comments on the Rutgers student newspaper Instagram page when this case was 
filed;18 the Doe plaintiffs fear the same ridicule on social media platforms they use, 
or on campus.  These concerns are more than reasonable and justified given the 
hostility expressed against the unvaccinated in the media and in public discourse.  
Does 6 and 7 have overheard critical commentary about the unvaccinated on 
campus.  As a result, some of the Doe plaintiffs are particularly concerned that 
they may be discriminated against in future graduate admissions or in future job 
prospects, particularly since the commentary at large and the result of increasing 
mandates is to coerce the unvaccinated by essentially excluding them from every 
place of employment, and every sector of public accommodation.  When the mayor 
of New York city, Governors and even the President of the United States are 
publicly blaming the unvaccinated and condoning coercion and discrimination 
against the unvaccinated, it is easy to understand how students who have barely 
 
18 See https://www.instagram.com/p/CS2BXnftqVN/?utm medium=copy link 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 14 of 20 PageID: 434

 
12 
embarked on their careers are concerned about the ramifications of participating in 
legal action to challenge disparate treatment.  
3. The magnitude of the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of 
the litigant’s identity 
The public interest in maintaining confidentiality of the Doe’s identities is 
considerable.  Interpreting this factor, courts have held that: 
the public may have an interest in maintaining a litigant’s 
confidentiality when the litigant belongs to a particularly vulnerable 
class, when the subject matter is highly personal, or when undesirable 
consequences will flow from revealing the identity of a litigant. 
Doe v. Rider University, Civ. No. 16-4882, 2018 WL 3756950, (D.N.J. May 18, 
2021).  In this case, Plaintiffs belong to a group that is being to a particularly 
vulnerable class, a group that is being excoriated and vilified by the media, 
organizations and even public figures who are not only condoning but encouraging 
exclusionary treatment and social ostracism.  Moreover, the subject matter of this 
case is highly personal: it involves medical decision-making and religious beliefs, 
two of the most personal spheres in a person’s life.  And given the divisiveness of 
the public discourse, undesirable consequences will flow from revealing the 
identities of these litigants because such treatment is not only condoned but 
encouraged.  Consequently, this factor favors anonymity because the Doe Plaintiffs 
satisfy each of the criteria for this factor. 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 15 of 20 PageID: 435

 
13 
4. Whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or 
otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the 
litigant’s identities 
Factor 4 also weighs in favor of anonymity.  Many of the issues presented in 
this case are of a purely legal nature (e.g. whether Defendants’ policy is preempted 
by federal law; whether Defendants’ had legal authority to impose a vaccine 
mandate and other emergency-use authorized measures).  Since these issues are 
legal, largely constitutional, it matters not who brings them and the public interest 
in knowing the litigants’ identities decreases.  See L.A. v. Hoffman, Civ. No. 14-
6985, 2015 WL 4461852 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) at *2 (holding plaintiff could 
proceed anonymously in part because plaintiff brought “constitutional challenge to 
a statute as it applies to a general class of people” and therefore “individual facts 
and circumstances were not of central importance”).  Moreover, this factor carries 
even greater weight at the motion to dismiss stage when factual assertions are not 
at issue and Defendants will be seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on purely legal 
grounds.  If this case continues past a motion to dismiss, the Court can revisit the 
propriety of keeping pseudonyms in place or a protective order to limit 
dissemination of Plaintiffs’ in order to conduct discovery.  However, for the time 
being, this factor weighs in favor of anonymity for now. 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 16 of 20 PageID: 436

 
14 
5. The undesireability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party 
and attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being 
publicly identified 
In this case, several Doe Plaintiffs have withdrawn from the case for fear of 
public disclosure (e.g., Does 1, 4, 5, and 10); Does 2, 3, and 13 are prepared to also 
withdraw from this case if the Court does not permit them to proceed 
anonymously.  Evidently, Plaintiffs are deterred from bringing this action as a 
result of the social stigma associated with belonging to the group that is being held 
out publicly as singularly responsible for prolonging the most pervasive pandemic 
in modern history.  The refusal to bring claims for fear of public identification 
weighs in favor of anonymity here. 
6. Whether the party seeking to sue pseudonymously has illegitimate, 
ulterior motives. 
There is no evidence, information or suggestion that any of the Doe 
plaintiffs have illegitimate ulterior motives.  The Doe plaintiffs are college students 
who find themselves embroiled in the most pressing social issue of this generation.  
They and their families are surrounded by mandates at every turn, from the 
educational institutions they attend, most workplaces, and even places of public 
accommodation (such as restaurants and public performance venues) which are off 
limits to the Doe plaintiffs under certain local mandates.  The Doe Plaintiffs have 
taken the unique and courageous step of filing legal action on the most divisive 
issue of the time at its zenith in the public consciousness.  No case cited by 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 17 of 20 PageID: 437

 
15 
Defendants can compare to the social backlash presently visited upon the 
unwelcomed class to which the Doe Plaintiffs belong.  As a result, all of the factors 
favoring anonymity weigh in favor of the Doe Plaintiffs in this case continuing in 
this case under a pseudonym. 
II. 
THE FACTORS DISFAVORING ANONIMITY DO NOT 
DISQUALIFY THE DOE PLAINTIFFS FROM PROCEEDING 
ANONYMOUSLY. 
Additionally, the factors disfavoring anonymity have less weight in this 
case.  Certainly, there is a universal level of public interest in access to the 
identities of the litigants, but as stated, since the case deals primarily with legal 
issues, this factor is not as weighty as it normally would be.  Second, none of the 
Does are public figures, they are students, some only freshman, who are pursuing 
legal action alongside other students who have chosen to appear publicly.  As a 
result, there is no particularly strong interest in the public knowing who these 
particular Doe Plaintiffs are, beyond the fact that they are students enrolled at 
Rutgers.  Finally, there is no evidence or basis that opposition to the pseudonym by 
counsel or Defendants is illegitimately motivated, therefor this factor is neutral in 
this analysis.  Combined these factors are insufficient to tip the scales in favor of 
public disclosure. 
 
This is not a situation where the Doe plaintiffs may simply suffer 
embarrassment or economic harm – embarrassment and economic harm are a 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 18 of 20 PageID: 438

 
16 
certainty in today’s political climate – but more importantly, at stake, is exclusion 
from every sector of civil society, and being outcast in their classes, on campus and 
in their future academic and professional careers before those future prospects even 
begin to take shape.  If elected officials have no qualms about vilifying the 
unvaccinated in public discourse, what treatment can Plaintiffs reasonably expect 
to face if they are publicly outed in this case and in their classes? 
 
In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington-Arnold 
School District, Civ. No. 2:12-cv-1319, 2012 WL 6629643 (W.D. Pa. 2012) at *1, 
the Court permitted Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously based in part on “Facebook 
pages, local news stories, email messages” which were the views of some members 
of the local community with regard to the lawsuit, containing “angered threats and 
crash rhetorical flourishes.”  The statements that were persuasive in that case pale 
by comparison with the public statements against the unvaccinated that pervades 
the social discourse today. The climate in which the Doe Plaintiffs bring this action 
is bitterly hostile, divisive and dangerous.  This Court should not expose these Doe 
Plaintiffs to the risks of retaliation, ridicule and ostracism when public resentment 
is so great. 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 19 of 20 PageID: 439

 
17 
CONCLUSION 
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court 
deny Defendants’ motion to compel Doe Plaintiffs to appear publicly at this stage 
in the proceedings and comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 
Respectfully submitted. 
October 18, 2021  
 
 
 
GOMEZ LLC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:  s/ Julio C. Gomez  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Julio C. Gomez, Esq. 
 
1451 Cooper Road 
Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 
Tel 908.789.1080 
Fax 908.789.1081 
jgomez@gomezllc.com 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 33   Filed 10/18/21   Page 20 of 20 PageID: 440

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.njd.480171.33.0.pdf

Size

271,510 bytes

SHA-256

74854a5422a3ee8dcdcf3d00711bb4d20c127c2cf3c972e6b541600fb3e5c9ee

Our copy

gov.uscourts.njd.480171.33.0.pdf

Original

archive.org