U. files motion opposing anonymity in suit challenging mental health policies

The University has filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously in the mental health lawsuit filed last March.

The plaintiff, a student who currently uses the pseudonym W.P. in the lawsuit, filed with his lawsuit an application to proceed anonymously and protect his identity from public disclosure. The University’s motion argues that this would “severely prejudice Princeton and the named individual defendants, whom W.P. freely and repeatedly attacks here and in the media.”

William Maderer, the lead attorney representing the University and defendants, was out of his office and could not be reached for comment.

The motion cites two articles as evidence of how W.P. has been able to “hurl invective against defendants”: “How Colleges Flunk Mental Health,” originally in Newsweek, and “Documents shed light on how Princeton handles mental health cases,” originally in The Daily Princetonian.

The motion first argues that the public has an interest in knowing “all of the facts involved in a case, including the identities of the parties,” citing the First Amendment as well as past cases in which a plaintiff was denied anonymity. Unless the plaintiff has a reasonable fear of severe harm, the motion argues, the public interest is overriding.

The defendants further argue that the application for anonymity is inconsistent with W.P.’s jury trial demand. For example, he might have to shield his face, which would “preclude jurors from assessing his demeanor” and subvert the defendant’s ability to impeach him during their defense. They also argue that concern over exposing W.P.’s medical condition “does not trump the policy favoring open judicial proceedings.”

“Part of that defense will ordinarily include direct challenges to the plaintiff’s credibility, which may well be affected by the facts the plaintiff prefers to keep secret: his history of mental health problems and his history of substance abuse,” the motion reads.

Concealing the identity, they argue, also minimizes the possibility that witnesses would come forward and also unduly supports W.P.’s claim that the defendants have caused him “extreme embarrassment, stress, emotional pain and mental anguish … and reputational injury.”

All of these things, the motion argues, would be fundamentally unfair to the University and the seven individual defendants.

Along with his brief in support of his application to proceed anonymously, W.P. also filed an amended complaint and demand for jury trial at the end of last month in response to the defendants' motion to partially dismiss several components of the lawsuit. These documents were filed with the assistance of Kim Otis, a local lawyer, though the student is still representing himself pro se. Pro se legal representation refers to advocating on one’s own behalf before a court.

“Plaintiff has no illegal or ulterior motives in keeping his identity confidential but merely seeks to protect his reputation and not aggravate his medical condition,” his brief reads. In addition, Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni also granted the defendants' motion to allow two lawyers from Washington, D.C., to participate pro hac vice.Although they are not licensed in New Jersey, they will be allowed to appear and participate in this case. The lawyers, Henry Morris Jr. and Karen S. Vladeck of Arent Fox, LLP, will have to pay a fee of admission of $150 each before they can participate.