Doe v. Museum Medical Science
| Nurse Jane Doe |
| Sarah Sitkin, Texas Medical Center Corporation and Museum Medical Science |
| 1:2019cv00167 |
| January 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 AMENDED complaint by Jane Doe against Sarah Sitkin, Museum Medical Science and terminating Texas Medical Center Corporation. (yap, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has asked the Court for permission to proceed with this case anonymously, using the pseudonym Jane Doe. See #4 . "Judicial proceedings are supposed to be open... to enable the proceedings to be monitored by the public"; the "concealment of a party's name impedes public access to the facts of the case, which include the parties' identity." Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, the presumption that parties' identities are public information can be rebutted by showing that potential harm to the plaintiff exceeds the potential harm from concealment. Id. (citations omitted). Anonymity may prevail, for example, where the plaintiff is a minor or a rape victim. Id. Here, Plaintiff is not a minor and she does not allege sexual assault (indeed, Plaintiff specifically states that she does not allege sexual assault, #4 , p. 2). But Plaintiff does allege retaliation, and the danger of retaliation may be "a compelling ground for allowing a party to litigate anonymously." E.g., Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d at 669 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court grants #4 and allows Plaintiff to proceed using a pseudonym -- particularly because Plaintiff represents that the Defendants are aware of her identify and will not be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to proceed in this manner. The Court may revisit the issue if it becomes clear that the potential for retaliation is negligible or if Defendants can show that they will be prejudiced by the Court's decision today. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Pursuant to General Order 17-0005, this case falls within the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) Project, and the "Standing Order in MIDP Cases" now governs the conduct of the litigants in this matter. Under the MIDP, this Court shall enforce the MIDP Standing Order via the Courts inherent authority (including the contempt of court power) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, both the parties and their attorneys are hereby ordered to review and fully comply with the MIDP Standing Order, which is available on the Court's homepage: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/MIDP%20Standing%20Order.pdf. The parties are further advised that in light of the MIDP's intended goal of reducing the traditional cost and delay of federal civil litigation, this Court will not grant routine motions for extensions of time to meet the deadlines imposed by the MIDP Standing Order (even agreed motions made jointly by the parties). During the course of the litigation, the attorneys must also appear at all hearing dates set by the Court or noticed by the parties. If an attorney has a conflict with a set court date, the attorney must notify Judge Blakey's Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at (312) 818-6699. If appropriate, the Court will then reset the matter. Advising opposing counsel of a scheduling conflict is not a substitute for communicating directly with the Court. The litigants are further ordered to review and fully comply with all of this Courts own standing orders, which are available on Judge Blakey's information page on the Court's official website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/. An initial status conference is hereby set for 3/27/19 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. At the status conference, the Court will discuss the MIDP and ask the parties questions to verify that they have reviewed and complied with the MIDP Standing Order. Without exception, the parties must also file a status report no later than 3/18/19, using the model template set forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. Failure by any party to file the status report by the requisite deadline (either jointly or, if necessary, individually with an explanation as to why a joint report could not be filed) may result in a summary dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, or an entry of default against any served defendant(s) failing to comply with this order. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (yap, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Jane Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. (yap, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (yap, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (yap, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Jane Doe; jury demand. (yap, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
