Able to stay anonymous…for now.
A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled in favor of the woman accusing country star Garth Brooks of sexual assault, vacating an order from a court in Mississippi that denied her request to proceed in the case under a pseudonym.
If you’ll recall, the litigation actually consists of two cases: A lawsuit filed in California by a former hairdresser for the country star accusing him of raping and sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions; and a lawsuit filed by Garth against the same woman a few days before she filed her complaint, attempting to block his accuser from filing her lawsuit against him, denying her allegations and accusing her of a “shakedown.”
Garth had used pseudonyms for both parties when filing his case in Mississippi, identifying himself and his accuser only as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe” to prevent their identities from becoming public. But when she filed her lawsuit in California, she used Garth’s name in the complaint, which obviously made her allegations against him public – while protecting her own identity.
After he was named in the court filings, Garth went back and amended his complaint in the Mississippi case to include the names of BOTH parties, arguing that his accuser had forfeited her right to remain anonymous and proceed under a pseudonym because she had included identifying information in the California case.
This obviously upset the woman, who asked the judge in Mississippi to sanction Garth and to issue a ruling allowing her to remain anonymous and continue to use “Jane Roe” in court filings instead of her real name.
But last September, Judge Henry Wingate denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym and also denied her request for sanctions against Garth – which would pave the way for the singer to publicly name his accuser in court documents.
In his order, the judge ruled that the woman had already been publicly identified, both when Garth used her name in court filings and online through publicly available information, and that basically, the “proverbial cat was already out of the bag.” The court also pointed out that the woman was not in favor of sealing the record in the case until her identity became public:
“Ms. Roe was more concerned with airing Mr. Doe’s identity to the public than preserving her own confidentiality.”
The judge also noted out that when he filed his case in Mississippi, Garth had filed a motion asking permission for BOTH of the parties to remain anonymous – but before the judge could rule on that motion, the woman filed her California lawsuit and named Garth as the defendant, outing him publicly and rendering the issue moot. It was only then that Garth named her in the Mississippi suit, which he had not done to that point.
Obviously the woman wasn’t happy with the court’s ruling, and filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which brings us to today’s ruling.
Appeals Court Sides With Garth’s Accuser
In their opinion, which has been obtained by Whiskey Riff, the appeals court writes that they “agree with some of Roe’s arguments,” while laying out the factors for determining whether a party should be able to proceed anonymously in a lawsuit.
First, the appeals court took issue with the fact that the lower court judge ruled against the woman because she was a defendant in the case rather than a plaintiff:
“A defendant is no less deserving of pseudonymity than a plantiff simply by virtue of her being haled into court first.”
The court then turned to the sensitive nature of the allegations, noting that allegations of sexual assault “involve matters of the utmost intimacy.”
“There is no doubt that requiring alleged rape and sexual assault victims to proceed “under their real identities would require them to disclose information the utmost intimacy.”
And they weren’t persuaded by Garth’s argument that the public was able to figure out her identity based on information that she included in her complaint:
“True, publicly available information cannot be obscured by courts. However, that internet sleuths might speculate that Roe is a particular person because her California complaint “lines up with [her] public profile is not the same as a public broadcasting of Roe’s certain identity.”
Finally, the court addresses the fact that the woman’s name has already appeared in court documents, both when she was named by Garth and when she mistakenly included her identity in her own court filings:
“The disclosures were unintentional, were made in portions of larger filings, & Roe took steps to correct the errors once becoming aware of them, resulting in the sealing and refiling of the documents.”
In light of their findings, the appeals court vacated the order from the lower court that would have kept her from proceeding under a pseudonym, and remanded the issue back to the lower court to reconsider its opinion.
So what does that mean now?
Well, in all likelihood the woman will be able to continue to proceed under the name Jane Roe for the foreseeable future, but more importantly it means that the lawsuit will now be able to proceed after being halted during this appeal. The case had been stayed by the court while the woman appealed the ruling, so nothing has happened since the order from last September.
Once the case gets moving again, the woman has filed a motion to dismiss the Mississippi case (remember, that’s the case filed by Garth), while Garth is seeking to have the California case dismissed and force the woman to combine her claims with his in the Mississippi case.
It’s a bunch of procedural posturing on both sides, with each party hoping to set themselves up for success once they actually get into the claims themselves. But now, it seems that the appeals court has at least cleared the way to get things moving again, more than two years after the lawsuits were first filed.
Garth’s Response To The Allegations
Garth has, of course, vehemently denied the allegations, issuing a statement shortly after the lawsuit was filed indicating that he intends to fight to clear his name:
“For the last two months, I have been hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales of what my future would be if I did not write a check for many millions of dollars. It has been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.
Hush money, no matter how much or how little, is still hush money. In my mind, that means I am admitting to behavior I am incapable of – ugly acts no human should ever do to another.
We filed suit against this person nearly a month ago to speak out against extortion and defamation of character. We filed it anonymously for the sake of families on both sides.
I want to play music tonight. I want to continue our good deeds going forward. It breaks my heart these wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system, I do not fear the truth, and I am not the man they have painted me to be.”
