Civil Practice – Student claiming he was falsely accused may proceed using pseudonym

Where a student sued Virginia Tech and school officials, alleging that he was falsely accused of sexual assault, he may proceed using a pseudonym.

Background

John Doe sued Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the Board of Visitors of the University and numerous individuals. Doe alleges he did not sexually assault Jane Roe and Pauline Poe when they were undergraduates at the University. On Nov. 24, 2025, Doe filed a 33-count complaint. That same day, Doe filed a motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym.

The Fourth Circuit set out five non-
exhaustive factors that courts use to evaluate whether to grant a motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym: (1) whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent nonparties; (3) the ages of the person whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party and (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.

Subject matter

Litigation where a party “‘has been accused of sexual misconduct’” constitutes a “‘matter of [a] sensitive and highly personal nature.’” This court and “others in the Fourth Circuit frequently have afforded litigant[s] anonymity in Title IX claims concerning sexual assault or rape.” Also university disciplinary proceedings—unlike judicial proceedings—are confidential, so, in cases such as this one, some of the details of the alleged wrongdoing are not yet public.

Doe argues that if his name is disclosed in this litigation, then his name “will forever be publicly associated with allegations of sexual assault.” Consistent with precedent, I find the nature of this litigation is of a “sensitive and highly personal nature,” and Doe’s alleged wrongdoing was not disclosed in prior judicial proceeding, so the first factor weighs in favor of granting Doe’s motion.

Risk of harm

Doe contends that disclosure of his identity in this litigation could result in “retaliatory physical or mental harm based solely on the accusation that he committed sexual assault.” I find disclosure of the identity of Doe would likely subject him to an increased risk of retaliatory physical and mental harm, and the disclosure of Doe’s identity could also expose Roe and Poe to unwanted scrutiny, harassment and ridicule, so the second factor supports granting Doe’s motion.

Ages

Doe acknowledges he was an adult at the time of the alleged sexual assaults, but he pleads with the court that he was still relatively young. The complaint alleges Doe and Roe were under 21-years of age at the time of the alleged sexual assault of Roe. Although Poe’s age is not clear based allegations in the complaint, and Poe is not a party to this litigation, so Poe has not had an opportunity to represent her interests in this motion, there are no allegations that Poe was a minor. I find the third James factor is neutral because Doe, Roe and Poe were college students and legal adults at the time of the alleged sexual assaults.

Government

“Courts are more likely to allow a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym when the plaintiff challenges the government or government activity.” Here, Doe maintains the defendants are governmental entities and governmental employees, so the fourth factor favors granting leave to proceed under a pseudonym.

However, Doe sued 13 individual defendants in their official capacities and in their individual capacities. Because there is a risk of reputational harm to the 13 individual defendants, I find the fourth factor weighs against granting Doe’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym.

Prejudice

Doe represents that the defendants know the identity of Doe. Defendants did not file an opposition, so they did not advance any arguments as to why granting this motion would cause them prejudice. I find granting leave to proceed under a pseudonym would not prejudice defendants, so the fifth factor leans in favor of granting the motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym granted.

Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Case No. 7:25-cv-00846, Feb. 6, 2026. WDVA at Roanoke (Memmer). VLW 026-3-053. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion