Jane Doe v. Roseann Sutay
FBTCV115029666S
????Decided: January 17, 2012
The matter presently before the court arises out of the alleged disclosure by the defendant, Roseann M. Sutay, a nurse at St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport, Connecticut of the plaintiff’s prior diagnosis of HIV and Hepatitis C. The complaint, dated November 8, 2011, alleges that on January 25, 2011, the plaintiff was provided with medical treatment at St. Vincent’s, and that during that treatment, the plaintiff informed her treatment providers, including the defendant, that she had been recently diagnosed with HIV and Hepatitis C; ?the complaint further alleges that the defendant negligently and intentionally, without the plaintiff’s consent, told the plaintiff’s neighbor and friends this confidential information. ? The plaintiff claims that as a result of the disclosure, the plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, including anxiety, stress, humiliation, emotional and mental upset, and loss of sleep.
On November 23, 2011, the court, Tyma, J., granted the plaintiff’s ex parte application (#?101) for permission to use a pseudonym. ? The summons and complaint, filed on November 23, 2011 refers to the plaintiff throughout as ?Jane Doe.??1
The hearing took place as scheduled on January 9, 2012. ? The matter was properly docketed and noticed to the public pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book ??11?20A(j). ?The defendant is non-appearing and therefore no objection was made by the defendant to the use of a pseudonym by the plaintiff, and no members of the public requested an opportunity to be heard.
The use of pseudonyms in civil cases is governed by Connecticut Practice Book ??11?20A(h). ?Subsequent to the passage of that section, there have been numerous decisions allowing the use of a pseudonym by minor plaintiffs alleging sexual abuse who were minors at the time of the alleged abuse. ? See, e.g., Doe v. Russell, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV11?5029475 (June 15, 2011, Bellis, J.); ? Doe v. Dattco, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV09?4034887 (May 18, 2009, Cosgrove, J.) (also permitting minor plaintiff’s mother to use pseudonym); ?Doe v. Town of Fairfield, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV06?5004042 (October 24, 2006, Gilardi, J.) (pseudonym status granted to the plaintiff mother who brought a civil action for damages arising out of an alleged sexual assault of the plaintiff’s minor child while a passenger on a school bus); ?Doe v. Super 8 Motels, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV06?5003327 (August 3, 2006, Pittman, J.) [41 Conn. L. Rptr. 784] (also permitting minor plaintiff’s mother to use pseudonym); ?Doe v. Van Wagner, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV06?5002411 (April 13, 2006, Pittman, J.) [41 Conn. L. Rptr. 213] (also permitting minor plaintiff’s mother to use pseudonym); ?Doe v. Bellman, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV04?4004749 (December 22, 2004, Pittman, J.) (also extending use of pseudonym to plaintiff father); ?Doe v. East Haven Associates, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV04?0490161 (August 4, 2004, Pittman, J.) (same).
This court has also addressed the use of pseudonyms by an adult plaintiff who alleged that she was a victim of sexual abuse as a minor to proceed anonymously. ? See Doe v. Diocese of Bridgeport, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 10?5029345; ?Doe v. Brown, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV09?5024074 (December 11, 2009, Bellis, J.) Other courts have done the same. ? See Doe v. Terwilliger, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV09?5024692 (February 10, 2009, Cosgrove, J.) (victim of sexual assault while a minor permitted to use pseudonym); ?Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV07?4026864 (November 5, 2007, Silbert, J.) [44 Conn. L. Rptr. 475] (same); ?Doe v. Johnson, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV03?0483186 (December 2, 2003, Arnold, J.) [36 Conn. L. Rptr. 101] (same; ?also extending use of pseudonym to plaintiff father); ?Doe v. Firn, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia?Milford at Milford, Docket No. CV06?5001087 (September 22, 2006, Fischer, J.); ? but see Doe v. St. John, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury, Docket No. CV04?5000443 (April 13, 2006, Agati, J.) [41 Conn. L. Rptr. 157] (denying the plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously in a civil action for damages, where the plaintiffs claimed they were sexually abused by a priest when they were minors).
Finally, trial courts have also permitted adult victims of sexual abuse to use pseudonyms in a civil action. ? See Doe v. McNamara, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV09?5022796 (April 14, 2009, Hiller, J.); ? but see Doe v. Martin, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. CV04?4001231 (November 1, 2004, Pittman, J.) [38 Conn. L. Rptr. 179] (the only plaintiff was an adult victim).
While there are numerous cases in Connecticut in which pseudonyms were allowed in cases where the plaintiff alleged sexual abuse, there are few cases involving issues of medical privacy. ? In Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48, 60 (1959), a declaratory judgment action which predated the requirements of 11?20A, the court permitted the plaintiffs, medical patients who were challenging the states criminalizing the use of contraceptives, to use pseudonyms, stating that due to ?the intimate and distressing details alleged, it is understandable that the parties who are allegedly medical patients would wish to be anonymous.? ? Subsequent to the enactment of 11?20A, the plaintiffs, a married couple who alleged that the wife was wrongfully inseminated with sperm other than that of her husband, was allowed to proceed under pseudonyms in Smith v. Roe, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 05 4006038 (September 20, 2005, Tobin, J.) (the court denied the use of pseudonyms to the defendants, the obstetrician and medical groups).
In Roe v. City of Milwaukee, 37 F.Sup.2d 1127 (1999), the plaintiff, who was concerned that the litigation would result in the disclosure of his HIV-positive status, was allowed to proceed under a pseudonym. ? The court noted that unlike most other medical conditions, one’s HIV-positive status is still considered to be a stigma, such that disclosure of same would not be inconsequential. ?Id. at 1129. ? Other courts have also recognized the sensitive nature of this medical condition and have allowed those plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. ? See e.g. Roe v. City of New York, 151 F.Sup. 495 (S.D. New York 2001); ?Patient v. Corbin, 37 F.Sup.2d 433 (E.D.Va.1998).
Finally, our legislature has recognized the compelling privacy concerns for HIV patients. ? See C.G.S. ??19a?583 (prohibits disclosure of confidential HIV-related information); ?C.G.S. ??19a?583(10) (requires that, in any action by a person seeking access to confidential HIV-related information by court order, the pleadings shall substitute a pseudonym for the true name of the subject of the test).
?[N]ot all substantial privacy interests are sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings. ? The ultimate test for permitting a party to proceed anonymously is whether the party has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. ? A party’s desire to avoid economic and social harm as well as embarrassment and humiliation in his professional and social community is normally insufficient to permit him to appear without disclosing his identity. ? The most compelling situations for granting a motion to proceed anonymously involve matters which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party’s identity ? There must be a strong social interest in concealing the identity of the party.? ?Vargas v. Doe, 96 Conn.App. 399, 410?11 (2006). ?(Internal quotations, citations omitted).
The court has considered the requirements of P.B. Sec. 11?20A(h)(1) and controlling case law. ? The court finds that the plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym will serve the overriding interest of protecting the plaintiff from exposure in the community of details of her private, sensitive, medical situation, where the plaintiff claims that she has suffered and continues to suffer injuries of a serious nature, including anxiety, stress, humiliating, emotional and mental upset, and loss of sleep.
The use of a pseudonym by the plaintiff in the caption of the case and in all papers filed with the court by either side is the least restrictive and least intrusive way to balance the interests of the public?the right to be aware of the workings of Judicial Branch?and the interests of the plaintiff?to protect the privacy of a litigant who alleges, inter alia, disclosure of private, sensitive, medical information, and who is in no way a public figure.
Accordingly, the court enters the following order, which shall remain in effect until further order of the court, and is entered without prejudice to any interested party requesting reconsideration or modification of this order as the case progresses or as circumstances change:
1.?The plaintiff shall be entitled to maintain this lawsuit using a pseudonym.
2.?All court filings shall use, or shall delete the true names and substitute the pseudonym Jane Doe to refer to the plaintiff.
3.?The affidavit of Jane Doe reviewed by the court in the ex parte application shall be sealed and a redacted copy, omitting all identifying information including her true name, shall be electronically filed in lieu thereof, if not already done so.
4.?Counsel for the plaintiff shall deliver a true copy of the affidavit identifying the true name of the plaintiff to counsel for the defendants in this case, if it has not been so provided already.
5.?The courtroom shall not be closed for further proceedings in this matter. ? The court finds that the use of a pseudonym by the plaintiff is sufficient to meet the competing interests of public access and of litigant privacy. ? No other parts of the file are sealed other than the affidavit of the plaintiff.
BELLIS, J.
FOOTNOTES
FN1.?The original affidavit reviewed by the court is signed by the plaintiff using her true name and has been filed with the court as a lodged document..??FN1.?The original affidavit reviewed by the court is signed by the plaintiff using her true name and has been filed with the court as a lodged document.
Bellis, Barbara N., J.