ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
ROE V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 99-850-CV-19-A
JANE ROE, II
AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR.,
PATRICIA B. WINDLE and
WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D.,
MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Jane Roe, II, by and through her undersigned attorney, hereby requests that she be allowed to preserve her anonymity in this proceeding, in support thereof saying:
1. Plaintiff's true identity is known to all of the Defendants.
2. Defendants have waived their right to contest Plaintiff's anonymity.
3. Defendants are estopped to contest Plaintiff's anonymity.
4. Plaintiff is not required to disclose her true identity to the public because of the utmost intimacy of the facts of this case.
5. The public policy of the State of Florida provides that the Plaintiff should be allowed to retain her anonymity.
6. The Florida Constitution, more specifically its provision for the right of privacy, safeguards the Plaintiff's true identity.
7. The Plaintiff will be unnecessarily damaged in her economic relations and personal associations if she is not allowed to maintain her anonymity.
8. Exposure of the Plaintiff to the shame and disgrace accompanying her mistreatment at Aware Woman would be an impediment to other such victims coming forward in the future to complain of such horrible abuse.
9. Plaintiff asserts the Doctor-Patient privilege.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Roe, II, moves that she be permitted to maintain her anonymity in this cause and that the Defendants be prohibited from revealing her identity to the public.
CERTIFICATION OF 3.01(g) COMPLIANCE
Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that moving counsel confer with opposing counsel prior to filing certain motions. The undersigned hereby certifies that the anonymity of Plaintiff was discussed by all attorneys during the Case Management meetings and was also argued at the Case Management hearing. This motion is opposed by the Defendants.
Plaintiff, Jane Roe, II, hereby supports her Motion To Proceed Anonymously with the following memorandum of law:
1. At the hearing before the Magistrate Judge on October 20, 1999, opposing counsel were asked by the Court if they knew the true identity of the Plaintiff. They answered in the affirmative. This is because Plaintiff had relied on the confidentiality of the information initially given to the abortion clinic and its personnel and the Doctor - Patient privilege. She told them her real name. Later, at the hospital, Plaintiff was provided with guards and a fictitious name, "Sheila Fitzgerald", to protect her personal safety and anonymity as is shown by Exhibit 'A' which is attached hereto.
2. The case of Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992), shows that the procedure utilized by that Defendant to object to the use of a fictitious name was a motion to dismiss the complaint. Here, the present Defendants have filed two motions to dismiss the complaint; however, neither motion to dismiss alleges a violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (a). Thus, Defendants have waived their right to contest Plaintiff's anonymity. And since these Defendants know Plaintiff's true name, Rule 10 has been complied with so far as they are concerned.
3. Defendants, Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., Patricia B. Windle and Edward W. Windle, Jr. have brought suit in the Middle District of Florida in that case known as Aware Woman v. Raney, Case number 99-05-CIV-ORL-19C, in which they have sought relief for themselves and another patient at their abortion clinic using the fictitious surname "Poe" in order to preserve the anonymity of that particular patient and her family. Thus, these Defendants are estopped to contest Plaintiff's request for anonymity. Additionally, Plaintiff does not know what the names of the owners of Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. are at this time.
4. One of the circumstances specified in Doe v. Frank (supra) which permit a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is the 'utmost intimacy' about the information which is to be disclosed in the case at hand. The Plaintiff in the cited case suffered from alcoholism, which is generally held to be a curable - and self-inflicted - condition. The Court of Appeals did not allow that plaintiff to proceed anonymously because the need for anonymity did not outweigh the presumption of openness. The case at hand presents an unusual situation in which the violence and abuse inflicted on the Plaintiff should be revealed to the public but the danger of harm to the Plaintiff and the sensitive and personal nature of the wrong require that her identity should not be disclosed publicly.
5. The public policy of the State of Florida concerning the identity of those who have been the victim of sexual battery is found in Florida Statute §794.026. The statute provides that the victims' identity should not be revealed. A review of Florida Statute §794.011 (h) shows that in addition to a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights under F.A.C.E:, she suffered a sexual battery. There is an exception for 'an act done for a bona fide medical purpose': while one of the perpetrators is a physician, by no means was the violation of Plaintiff done in good faith.
6. In Florida, privacy is an important right which is embodied in the Florida Constitution as §23 of Article 1. To the fullest extent possible, the government should protect the right of Plaintiff to be left alone.
7. The U.S. Supreme Court discussed the crime of rape in the case of Coker v. Georgia, 97 S.Ct. 2861 (1977), saying:
It is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim ... Short of homicide, it is the "ultimate violation of self"... Rape is very often accompanied by physical injury to the female and can also inflict mental and psychological damage. Page 2869.
As the Florida crime of 'rape' is now defined as "sexual battery", the "vaginal penetration of another by any other object" is now the same as the crime described in the above quotation. Florida Statute §794.011 (h). Obviously, Plaintiff will suffer additional and unnecessary damage to her personal associations and economic relations if the Defendants cause her identity to be known to the public.
8. Lady Godiva is said to have ridden naked through Coventry in order to protect her husband. Future victims of abortion clinic violence must know that they can protect what remains of their personal dignity when appealing to the Federal Courts for justice. They must not fear the requirement that they come naked to the courthouse.
9. Plaintiff does not waive her privilege to prevent the release of her name under the Doctor-Patient relationship.
The Plaintiff is willing to pay any needed financial cost required to protect her anonymity so far as these proceedings are concerned. She should not be forced to live in fear of the Defendants and the additional harm which they may cause her.
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to Richard E. Ramsey, Esquire, Post Office Box 2753, Orlando, Florida 32802-2753 and Andrew W. Menyhart, Esquire, Post Office Box 541760, Merritt Island, Florida 32954-1760 by U. S. Mail this 11th day of November, 1999.
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|