Michael Irvin recently filed a new defamation complaint against Marriott, his Jane Doe accuser, and others in Arizona state court. Irvin’s new complaint names 3 additional hotel employees as Defendants. Despite this fact, Irvin’s complaint refers to his accuser by the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”
Many of you have left comments expressing confusion as to why Irvin has not revealed his accuser’s true name to the public. In this video, we’ll review the law addressing anonymous “John” and “Jane Doe” parties. After that, I’ll explain why I believe Irvin has kept Jane Doe’s true identity a secret.
Why do courts generally require public disclosure of a defendant’s true name in a lawsuit? To answer this question, we’ll start by looking at Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 10, which requires that plaintiffs use a defendant’s real name in their complaint rather than a fictions name like “Jane Doe.” Rule 10 recognizes the principle that judicial proceedings should be conducted in public. The people have a right to know who is using their courts.
The benefits of a transparent court system include: discouraging perjury, discouraging bias, giving the public assurance that the proceedings are fair, allowing the public to scrutinize the parties and come forward with evidence and witnesses that may be relevant to the case.
To determine whether a party to a lawsuit may litigate under a fictitious name like “Jane Doe,” courts usually balance Jane Doe’s interest in keeping her identity a secret against the public’s interest in knowing her true name.
Courts often allow a party to litigate anonymously if publicly identifying their true name would create a legitimate risk of physical or mental harm or where anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.
Courts often refuse to grant anonymity when a party wants to use a pseudonym merely to avoid unwanted attention, embarrassment, or economic harm.
Marriott has alleged that the Renaissance Hotel in Downtown Phoenix received a number of “threatening” phone calls after Michael Irvin created a “media frenzy” over the surveillance tape.
The second reason why Arizona Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff like Irvin disclose the defendant’s true name is a practical one: to ensure the person named as a defendant in a lawsuit actually knows that they are a party to the lawsuit.
We’ll take a look at Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which describes the details that must appear in a summons to a defendant. Rule 4 permits a summons addressed to a party under a fictitious name like “Jane Doe.” But Rule 4 requires that the Return of Service filed with the Court disclose the true name of the “Jane Doe” Defendant.
In this video, we’ll look at the Arizona state court’s docket sheet, which reveals that Irvin has yet to file a Return of Service for Jane Doe. Notably, Irvin has already filed a Return of Service for every Defendant in this case other than Jane Doe.
This raises the question, “Why would Irvin protect the identity of the person who he claims defamed him?” I’ll answer this question in this video. After that, I’ll explain whether we can expect to eventually learn Jane Doe’s true name and, if so, how soon that might occur.
SUBSCRIBE: / @legalpadlaw
WAGONER LAW FIRM: wagonerlawfirmpllc.com/
#michaelirvin #defamation #nflnews
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: The information in this video and on this Channel is not legal advice or any other form of professional advice. It's for informational/educational purposes only. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of it does not create, an attorney-client relationship. Nothing in this video or on this channel should be taken as legal advice or any other form of professional advice for any individual claim, case, or situation. You should seek advice from an attorney or other professional regarding your specific situation. Contacting the Wagoner Law Firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor does your receipt of an initial case evaluation. The only way to create an attorney-client relationship with the Wagoner Law Firm is through a mutual written agreement, which you will be asked to sign. Please do not send any confidential information to the Wagoner Law Firm until an attorney-client relationship has been established. This description may contain one or more affiliate links, meaning that I will earn a financial benefit if you click through and use an affiliate link (at no additional cost to you).
Legal Pad Law