Plaintiff Argues That, If She Does Not Use Her Chosen Name, She Will Suffer Serious and Lasting Effects to Her Mental Health

From Davis v. Surefire Hospitality Group, LP, decided Wednesday by Judge Marilyn Horan (W.D. Pa.):

Plaintiff has identified herself as Kimberly Davis in all filings in this case, while Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s legal name is Matthew Grinage. As such, Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). Defendant provides documentation, including her application for employment with Defendant’s restaurant, where she used her legal name, Matthew Grinage. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff has not yet completed a formal legal name change process.

In her brief, Plaintiff argues generic allegations that the use of her legal name causes her “distress, mental anguish, and harm.” Plaintiff argues that, if she does not use her chosen name, she will suffer serious and lasting effects to her mental health.

Rule 10 states that the “title of the complaint must name all parties.” The core intent of Rule 10(a) is to assure public access, transparency, and accountability in judicial proceedings. Following historical practices of publicness, proper access to litigants’ names is important. Rule 10, along with Rule 17, reinforces that court proceedings must remain open and accessible to the public, demands clarity in how parties are identified and ensures the public record accurately reflects the identity of who is before the court and why.

In “exceptional cases,” courts have previously allowed the use of a pseudonym…. [But] the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requisite factors to proceed by pseudonym, including use of her chosen, rather than her legal, name, in this case. Disclosure of Plaintiff’s legal name would not cause extraordinary harm or reveal her transgender status in a way that creates genuine danger, because, as demonstrated by Defendant’s brief, Plaintiff has regularly used her legal name, including in her job application for employment with the Defendants.

Courts have consistently grounded pseudonym analysis in fears of severe harm. Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific instance within her community, workplace, or the public where use of her legal name has exposed her to danger, harassment, or violence.

The distress, associated with use of a legal name that differs from one’s chosen name, is more properly characterized as embarrassment or discomfort, which the Third Circuit has found to be insufficient to meet the standard. Without particularized allegations, Plaintiff’s request reflects a personal preference, rather than a reasonable fear or severe harm….

[A]s shown by the Defense exhibits, Plaintiff’s legal name has been publicly used many times. Because Plaintiff’s identity has not been confidential in the past, there is no basis to permit her use of her chosen name in the present filings….

While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s preference to use her chosen name rather than her legal name, such preference does not supersede the interest of the public in knowing the true identity of litigants in cases such as this…. [And] the Plaintiff’s identity, background, and specific circumstances are central to the claims at issue. The public’s interest in knowing the identity of who is making claims is not diminished simply because Plaintiff prefers to use a different name….

Plaintiff’s legal name remains “Matthew Grinage”. It has not been legally changed to “Kimberly Davis.” Pennsylvania law provides a statutory mechanism to obtain a legal name change. Had Plaintiff accessed the appropriate and available legal process to obtain a legal name change, she would be entitled to use that legal name in these proceedings. Such a change, effectuated through court filings and official publications, provides public notice of the legal change of name. However, having not done so, Plaintiff must proceed under her legal name of Matthew Grinage….

Emily E. Mahler and Jennifer Lynn Deflitch (Margolis Edelstein) represent defendant.