Whether a district court abuses its discretion when, without a finding of risk of physical harm, improper retaliation, or minor status, it permits a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in a suit collaterally attacking a University's Title IX proceedings?

QUESTION PRESENTED When John Doe brought suit against Indiana University for violating both the Constitution and Title IX in deciding to expel him from medical school, he moved to proceed under a pseudonym. Applying a non-exhaustive multifactor test, the district court granted the motion, but eventually granted summary judgment to defendants. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the University violated the Due Process Clause in expelling Doe. But the court did not stop there. Rejecting the multifactor test applied by all but one circuit court, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by permitting John Doe to conceal his name “without finding that he is a minor, is at risk of physical harm, or faces improper retaliation.” Pet. App. 10. In remanding the case, the court gave Doe a Hobson’s choice—reveal his true name and receive a remedy or dismiss the complaint. The circuits are intractably split on the proper test to apply to a motion to use a pseudonym. The First Circuit considers the totality of the circumstances, asking whether the case falls within four categories that ordinarily warrant anonymity. The Seventh Circuit asks only whether the plaintiff is a minor, at risk of physical harm, or faces improper retaliation. Every other circuit applies a non-exhaustive multifactor test, examining up to ten factors. The question presented is: 1. Whether a district court abuses its discretion when, without a finding of risk of physical harm, improper retaliation, or minor status, it permits a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in a suit collaterally attacking a University’s Title IX proceedings?