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
© 2025 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 AllHolland & Knight Expands Corporate Practice in Texas With Former Greenberg Traurig Partner
3 minute readForum Clause Axes $844M Case Against Reinsurer Over Deadly Plane Crash, Judge Rules
Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 2Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
- 3GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 4Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 5Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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