I wanted to share this friend-of-the-court brief I recently filed in the Ohio Court of Appeals (Doe v. Roe) with the help of valuable local counsel Jeffrey M. Nye and UCLA LL.M. student Bhavyata Kapoor. This defamation lawsuit is typical in nature, where parties usually prefer not to be associated with the accusations they are suing over. However, our legal system values public access to court records, including the names of parties, to ensure transparency and accountability. The trial court’s decision to deny pseudonymity in this case was not an abuse of discretion.

There is a strong presumption against pseudonymous litigation, with only rare exceptions allowed by the courts. Ohio law aligns with federal law in emphasizing the importance of public access to parties’ names in court proceedings. Knowing the parties’ names enables reporters and researchers to investigate the case further, uncovering potential patterns of litigation, credibility of the litigants, and possible ulterior motives. The public’s right to access this information contributes to the integrity of the judicial process and facilitates accurate reporting on legal proceedings.

The presumption against pseudonymity is vital in defamation cases where freedom of speech issues may arise. Naming parties promotes accountability and encourages truthful testimony from witnesses. Allowing parties to proceed anonymously could undermine the credibility of the judicial process and hinder the search for truth. In this case, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the general rule of public access to party names.

In conclusion, the presumption against pseudonymity serves the interests of justice, transparency, and accuracy in legal proceedings. Public access to parties’ names enables oversight of the courts and promotes the fair and impartial administration of justice.