Update on Westphal v. Wagner — The District "outs" the student plaintiffs

     Back in December 2009, we filed a motion to allow the two student plaintiffs (Doe 1 and Doe 2) to participate anonymously. The judge granted the motion in April and issued a protective order accordingly.
     Then, this summer, the students were deposed. In August, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the “anonymity” order.
     Alas, the motion was granted, and so the students had to decide whether to go forward. “Doe 1” has chosen to withdraw, but “Doe 2,” Ms. Bain, has opted to continue with the case. I’m told that she is now a student at UC Berkeley, though she continues to take Saddleback courses online. Doe 1’s anonymity will be maintained by both sides.
     Here’s Judge Klausner’s ruling:

     Plaintiffs had asserted that anonymity was necessary to ensure Does’ safety. Plaintiffs further alleged that if the Court did not preserve Does’ anonymity, school officials and professors might retaliate against Does through prejudicial grading. In light of the purported safety concerns, the Court granted Plaintiffs request on a provisional basis. The Order specified, “Does shall only remain anonymous in the case for this stage of the proceeding. At later stages... the Court may... compel the John Does to disclose their identity or abandon the suit.”
     Now that the record has been further developed, the Court finds it unnecessary to extend anonymity to the two Doe plaintiffs. Safety was the primary rationale the Court relied on in originally granting the Does leave to proceed anonymously. However, Does’ deposition testimony presents no indication that the students fear for their physical safety. Instead, both Does indicate the possibility of prejudicial grading as a primary reason for anonymous participation in the underlying lawsuit. It is doubtful that this possibility alone provides adequate reason for proceeding anonymously. If Does were subjected to prejudicial grading due to their participation in this suit, they could seek redress in another suit. In any case, by their own admission, Does have little to support their fear of academic retaliation beyond the fact that it is theoretically possible. The Court finds that the possibility of retaliation, by school officials or others, is purely speculative. Accordingly, Does may no longer advance their action under cover of anonymity. …The April 5, 2010 Order granting plaintiff Does 1 and 2 leave to proceed under pseudonyms is vacated.

     Since then, our lawyers have filed the “reply brief” (re the case itself).
     It is my understanding that they are also working on a motion for “summary judgment.”
     So stay tuned.