Doe v. Loyola University Chicago
| John Doe |
| Loyola University Chicago |
| 1:2020cv07293 |
| December 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Manish S Shah |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously 3 is granted. The motion 3 and supporting memorandum 10 should be publicly available. Neither document identifies plaintiff. The clerk shall lift the ex parte designation on those filings. The motion is granted because at this early stage of the case, the presumption of public identification of the plaintiff gives way to legitimate concerns of retaliation or collateral interference with plaintiff (and other witnesses who could be identified if plaintiff were identified) that has no bearing on the merits of the litigation. Although the use of fictitious names is disfavored, anonymity causes no prejudice to either the defendant or the public at large. The public will be able to monitor this case and the court's rulings, including its reasoning, and plaintiff's name does not appear to be material to the case's initial stages. Defendant is free to raise the issue, and as the case moves forward, the balance of factors may tilt back in favor of the presumption of public disclosure. Allegations of sexual misconduct are frequently litigated in public and plaintiff is voluntarily choosing to bring a lawsuit. For now, however, as the parties initiate the case and join issue, the risk of retaliation or unnecessary public disclosure of witnesses' private information (people who have not volunteered to subject themselves to litigation) outweighs the presumption against pseudonyms. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 14 Defendant Loyola University of Chicago's Local Rule 3.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement STATEMENT by Loyola University Chicago (Rocks, Patrick) |
| Filing 13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Loyola University Chicago by Priya Prakash Khatkhate (Khatkhate, Priya) |
| Filing 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Loyola University Chicago by Patrick J. Rocks, Jr (Rocks, Patrick) |
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by John Doe. Loyola University Chicago waiver sent on 12/16/2020, answer due 2/15/2021. (Bernstein, Stuart) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motions for leave to appear pro hac vice #6 #7 #8 are granted. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17738041. (Singh, Cindy) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17737929. (Miltenberg, Andrew) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17732056. (Bernstein, Stuart) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Ryan J Levitt (Levitt, Ryan) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Damon Matthew Cheronis (Cheronis, Damon) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Cheronis, Damon) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by John Doe; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-17724541.(Cheronis, Damon) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Manish S. Shah. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mxo, ) |
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.
