Smith v. Roe et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-10949-WGY Document 39 _ Filed 03/05/26 Pagelof3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JANE SMITH, individually
and derivatively on behalf
of AI Company (a pseudonym)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-10949

Vv.
JOHN ROE (a pseudonym)
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY

Defendants.

weer eee eee eee ees ese es

YOUNG, D.J. March 5, 2026

ORDER

In August of 2023, “Jane Doe” filed a claim against John
Roe (a pseudonym) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(“MIT”). That claim was assigned to this Court. See Doe v.
Roe, No. 23-cv-11935-WGY (D. Mass.). This Court instructed the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint with her true name. ECF
No. 34. Doe failed to do so, and the claim was dismissed. ECF
No. 36. Doe appealed that dismissal to the First Circuit, which
rejected the appeal. ECF No. 45. Doe then moved for Relief
from Judgement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). ECF No. 49. This
Court denied that motion, and Doe appealed to the First Circuit.

ECF No. 51. That appeal is currently pending.

AUTHENTICATED [ 1 ]
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 1:25-cv-10949-WGY Document 39 _ Filed 03/05/26 Page 2of3

In April of 2025, four days after this Court denied Doe’s
Motion for Relief from Judgement, Doe filed another Complaint in

this District Court under the name “Jane Smith.” Smith v. Roe,

1:25-cv-10949 (D. Mass). The case was randomly assigned to
Judge Kobick. ECF No. 6. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 9, and a motion for reassignment, ECF No. 10. Judge
Kobick granted the motion to reassign the case back to this
session. ECF No. 14.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss,
claiming that “[d]efendants falsely assert .. . that Plaintiff
is proceeding under a pseudonym” despite the complaint
presenting the name “Jane Smith” without a pseudonym

designation. Opp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 25 G@ 2. Defendants

argue in response that Plaintiff has not actually changed her
legal name to “Jane Smith.” Defs. Reply Mem. Supp. Mot.
Dismiss, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing
Schedule regarding a motion to seal on September 19, 2025. As
of the publication of this Order, she has not filed any such
motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that “the
title of the complaint must name all the parties,” and Rule
17(a) (1) requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest.” Further, the First Circuit

has established a “strong presumption against the use of

(2]

Case 1:25-cv-10949-WGY Document 39 _ Filed 03/05/26 Page 3of3

pseudonyms in civil litigation.” Doe v. Massachusetts Inst. of

Tech., 46 F.4th 61 (lst Cir. 2022) (quoting Does 1-3 v. Mills,
39 F.4th 20 (lst Cir. 2022)).

Taking all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff,
it remains unclear whether she is in fact attempting to proceed
under a pseudonym, or whether her purported name change has been
effectuated as required by law. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 210, §§
12-14. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE as
to why the Defendant’s motion ought not be granted for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 10 & 17. Plaintiff shall, by March 19, 2026, file an
affidavit and any supporting documentation proving her
compliance with the aforementioned Federal Rules. Plaintiff's
failure to comply with this deadline may result, among other

actions, in granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM G. JOUN
DISTRICT JWYDGE

[3]