The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Gregory Burns challenging a district court order that allowed a sexual assault plaintiff to proceed under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' in a civil tort action against him.
In case No. 89998, Burns sought to compel the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada in Clark County to prevent the plaintiff from maintaining her anonymity throughout the litigation. The petition targeted District Judge Maria Gall's ruling that protected the plaintiff's right to proceed without revealing her true identity.
The underlying case began when Jane Doe filed a complaint against Burns alleging sexual assault. According to court records, Doe initially proceeded under the pseudonym without seeking formal permission from the court to use an assumed name, as is typically required in civil proceedings.
Two years after the initial filing, Burns moved the district court to preclude Doe from continuing to litigate anonymously. Burns argued that the plaintiff should be required to reveal her identity to proceed with the lawsuit. However, the district court denied Burns' motion and simultaneously granted Doe's countermotion to formally continue litigation under a pseudonym.
Unsatisfied with the district court's decision, Burns filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Nevada Supreme Court. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a lower court to perform a specific act when it has a clear legal duty to do so and no other adequate remedy exists.
The petition challenged Judge Gall's order as an abuse of discretion, arguing that allowing anonymous litigation violated established procedural rules and Burns' rights to face his accuser openly in court proceedings.
The Nevada Supreme Court, sitting en banc with all justices participating, issued a brief order on January 29 denying Burns' petition. Justice Bell authored the court's opinion, which upheld the district court's protection of the plaintiff's anonymity.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between open court proceedings and protecting alleged victims in sensitive cases involving sexual assault allegations. Courts must balance the public's right to access judicial proceedings against legitimate privacy interests of parties, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
Pseudonymous litigation, while not common, is sometimes permitted in cases involving sensitive subject matter such as sexual assault, domestic violence, or cases where disclosure might cause significant harm to a party's reputation, safety, or privacy interests.
Burns was represented by multiple law firms including Hayes Wakayama Juan with attorneys Dale A. Hayes Jr. and Liane K. Wakayama from Las Vegas, as well as Chesnoff & Schonfeld with attorney Richard A. Schonfeld, also from Las Vegas.
The real party in interest, Jane Doe, was represented by Paul Padda Law, PLLC, with attorneys Paul S. Padda and Robert Kern from Las Vegas.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision means the underlying civil case will proceed with the plaintiff maintaining her anonymity. Burns' efforts to compel disclosure of her identity through the extraordinary writ process have been unsuccessful.
The ruling does not address the merits of the underlying sexual assault allegations against Burns, which remain pending in the district court. The decision focuses solely on the procedural question of whether the plaintiff may proceed anonymously.
This case reflects broader legal trends regarding privacy protections for alleged sexual assault victims in civil litigation. While criminal cases typically require open proceedings with named defendants and complainants, civil courts have more discretion to protect parties' identities when compelling circumstances justify anonymity.
The denied petition represents a victory for advocates of victim privacy rights, as it allows the underlying tort case to proceed without exposing the plaintiff to potential additional harm or harassment that might result from public identification.
The Nevada Supreme Court's brief order suggests the justices found no clear error in the district court's balancing of competing interests. By denying the mandamus petition, the high court affirmed that trial judges have appropriate discretion to permit pseudonymous litigation in sensitive cases.
The case now returns to Judge Gall's courtroom, where the substantive allegations of sexual assault will be litigated with the plaintiff's identity remaining protected from public disclosure. The ruling ensures that Jane Doe can pursue her civil claims without the additional burden of public exposure during an already difficult legal process.