What If You Start Calling Yourself Jane Smith, and Sue as Jane Smith, Instead of Asking to Sue Under a Pseudonym?

Suing under a pseudonym can often be quite valuable to a plaintiff; for instance, someone suing over alleged mistreatment by an employer may worry about becoming known as a litigious employee, and might therefore prefer to sue as a Jane Doe. But there’s a strong presumption in our legal system against such pseudonymous litigation, and worry about professional or economic retaliation generally isn’t enough to rebut that presumption.

But what if you start calling yourself Jane Smith in your everyday life, and then argue that you’ve therefore informally changed your name? People are often allowed to sue under names that aren’t their official names in government documents. If you routinely go by Bill Jones, for instance, you can sue as Bill Jones, even if your official name is William A. Jones, Jr. Likewise, women often start using their married names some time after marriage, or revert to their maiden names after a divorce, without going through any formal procedures.

Generally, “a person is free to adopt and use any name that he or she sees fit, if it is not done for any fraudulent purpose and does not infringe on the rights of others.” Yet it’s not clear how far this goes, especially if the alleged name change to a generic-sounding name happens after an earlier denial of pseudonymity.

I’ve only rarely seen discussion of this, but there’s now a court decision on the subject, Judge William Young’s May 7 order in Smith v. Roe (D. Mass.):

The Court addresses name change and proceeding by way of pseudonym issues and outlines its view of ways the case can proceed going forward. The Court hears from the plaintiff. With agreement of the plaintiff, The Court orders that without any formal change of name the plaintiff may proceed under the name of Jane Smith. And all Court filings will reflect the name of Jane Smith.

However, the original docket will reflect Jane Smith f/k/a with the plaintiff’s real name. If the case goes forward to trial, starting at the time where the Judge introduces the case to the jury, the Court will use the plaintiff’s real name. Any documents that need to be presented during the trial shall reflect the plaintiff’s real name. The courtroom will be open during trial. If a judgment results, the judgment (so far that is necessary) will reflect the plaintiff’s real name.

A bit of backstory, from an August 22, 2025 order in the same case by Judge Julia Kobick (D. Mass.):

Plaintiff “Jane Doe” [a former researcher at MIT] initially sued defendants Roe [another MIT researcher] and MIT in a state court case that was removed in August 2023 to this Court. Her amended complaint asserted seventeen claims against Roe or MIT, including for Massachusetts Wage Act violations and discrimination based on sex and disability.

After Roe and MIT moved to dismiss the amended complaint, Judge Young held a hearing in March 2024, where he denied that motion on the condition that Doe would file, within thirty days, a further amended complaint with her “true name” as opposed to a pseudonym, and explained to Doe that “you can’t just file another case before another judge or something, because our relatedness rules do require that you come back to me.” Judge Young subsequently dismissed the case because Doe failed to timely file another amended complaint.

Following her unsuccessful appeal to the First Circuit, Doe sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which was denied on April 10, 2025. Four days later, the same plaintiff, now proceeding under the pseudonym “Jane Smith,” filed this lawsuit against the same parties.

The defendants’ redline comparing this complaint to the amended complaint in Doe makes clear the factual allegations are materially similar and involve the same underlying occurrence. Indeed, aside from one fewer count and some minor changes, the two complaints are virtually identical and assert the same sixteen claims against Roe or MIT. This action should therefore have been designated as related to Doe under Local Rule 40.1(g)…. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to Judge Young, who consents to the transfer.

Back before Judge Young, Doe refiled her Complaint as Jane Smith. According to a filing by a different plaintiff but who appears to be allied with Jane Smith—Jarboe v. MIT, formerly Doe v. MIT—this seemed to be the rationale:

On the name question, Plaintiff [presumably referring to Smith, not Jarboe -EV] has filed a sealed declaration with supporting exhibits establishing that “Jane Smith” is her true legal name, adopted through a common-law name change for safety reasons unrelated to this litigation, and that the Rule 10 / Rule 17 challenge therefore fails. Declaration of Jane Smith in Response to Order to Show Cause; 10949 Dkt. 39 (show-cause order). Massachusetts recognizes that “a person may change his name at will, without resort to legal proceedings, by merely adopting another name, provided that this is done for an honest purpose.” Merolevitz, Petitioner, 320 Mass. 448, 450 (1946); see also Buyarsky, Petitioner, 322 Mass. 335, 338 (1948) (name-change statute “does not restrict a person’s choice of name but aids him in securing an official record”). Washington, where Plaintiff resides, likewise recognizes a common-law name change. Doe v. Dunning, 87 Wash. 2d 50, 53 (1976).

I couldn’t find more details on the “safety reasons.” Apparently, though, Smith’s argument persuaded the court to let her be identified as Smith—but not to conceal her official name altogether.