Media Groups Fight 'Jane Doe' Request in Federal NRA Gun Case
A brief filed last week on behalf of 21 organizations argued that allowing the teens to take part in the challenge as Jane Doe and John Doe would hinder public access to court proceedings.
October 04, 2018 at 12:23 PM
4 minute read
Media organizations from across the country are urging a federal appeals court to reject an attempt to allow two teens to remain anonymous in a challenge to a new Florida gun law.
A brief filed last week on behalf of 21 organizations argued that allowing the teens to take part in the challenge as Jane Doe and John Doe would hinder public access to court proceedings. The National Rifle Association filed the challenge in March to a law that increased to 21 from 18 the minimum age to buy rifles and other long guns in Florida.
“[The NRA and teens'] allegations in this case are — as they themselves argue — significant matters of public concern, especially because their challenges are framed as an assertion of their constitutional rights, and seek ultimately to invalidate legislation,” said the 40-page document, filed by attorneys for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “The testimony by and concerning Does [the teens] could very well affect the ultimate outcome of this case. Open litigation, with full disclosure of the parties' identities, will allow the public to better understand and assess the parties' competing claims, and their credibility, and to make informed judgments about the administration of justice in this case.”
The filing Friday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta is the latest move in a case that stems from lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott approving gun restrictions after the February mass shooting at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people.
The NRA quickly filed a federal lawsuit challenging the age change for purchasing guns and later sought to add a 19-year-old Alachua County resident as a plaintiff and identify her as Jane Doe. It also sought to add to the case allegations related to another 19-year-old identified as John Doe.
But Attorney General Pam Bondi's office has fought allowing the teens to take part in the case anonymously, and U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in May agreed with the state's legal position. That prompted the NRA to take the anonymity issue to the appeals court. The underlying lawsuit challenging the gun law remains pending.
The NRA has argued in court documents that anonymity is needed because of concerns for the safety of the teens. As part of its case, the NRA has cited threatening and often-vile emails received by longtime NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer.
“Jane Doe and John Doe, two 19-year-old Florida citizens, seek to participate in this lawsuit challenging Florida's age-based ban on the purchase of firearms anonymously, based on the reasonable, documented fear that they would suffer harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence if their true identities and participation in this controversial litigation were made public,” said a brief filed in June by the NRA's attorneys. “Under the standard for pseudonymous pleading established by this court's precedents, Jane and John Doe should clearly be allowed to remain anonymous.”
The attorneys for the RCFP filed the friend-of-the-court brief Friday on behalf of organizations ranging from the American Society of News Editors to The Dallas Morning News. Among the organizations were The McClatchy Co., which operates the Miami Herald and Bradenton Herald newspapers, and South Florida's WPLG television station.
In addition to raising arguments about public access to court proceedings, the media organizations disputed the NRA's argument that the teens need to remain anonymous for safety reasons.
“Put simply, the record before this court is devoid of any factual basis on which to conclude that there would be a legitimate risk of retaliation against Does themselves if their identities were revealed in this litigation,” the brief said. “Permitting Does to proceed pseudonymously in this case would provide grounds for any plaintiff asserting a 'controversial' claim to do so. Such broad use of pseudonymity is impermissible.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250