Judge denies request to seal lawsuit against UA fraternity over photos taken at party

FAYETTEVILLE -- A Washington County circuit judge has denied a request to seal a "Jane Doe" lawsuit that claims a fraternity should be held responsible for sexually explicit images taken at a party and shared without permission.

The case raises the question of under what circumstances may a lawsuit in state court be filed using a pseudonym.

Circuit Judge Doug Martin on Monday denied a joint motion filed July 27 by attorneys for both the woman and Lambda Chi Alpha asking that "all pleading, motions and documents" be restricted from the public.

The lawsuit, filed in February, states the woman was a student at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville when images were taken without her permission Feb. 28, 2017, at the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house on the UA campus. The lawsuit states photos were then shared via an email network for fraternity members.

The lawsuit claimed that keeping the woman's name out of court documents would not affect fairness.

But attorneys for the fraternal organization in court filings disputed her assertion that fairness would not be affected.

The lawsuit names the national organization -- Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity Inc. -- and the UA fraternity chapter -- Gamma Chi Zeta of Lambda Chi Alpha -- as defendants. It also names two other entities: Lambda Chi Alpha Corp. of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Lambda Chi Properties Inc.

George Rozzell, the attorney representing "Jane Doe," said in an email Monday that it would be "premature" to comment on the judge's order. Rodney Cook, an attorney representing Lambda Chi Alpha, did not respond to an email Monday requesting comment.

In June, Rozzell filed a motion on behalf of the woman that, in part, asked the judge for a "declaration of validity" of the anonymous complaint. The motion noted the opposition to the anonymous filing by attorneys representing Lambda Chi Alpha.

But the same motion also asked for an extension of time, and attorneys for both sides came together in July to ask the judge for more time "to resolve the issues" relating to the use of a pseudonym.

Martin granted them time by signing a July 10 order, with the request to seal the case filed by both sides as a joint motion later that month. Martin's order Monday is his first since the July 10 order.

In court documents, attorneys for the fraternal organization denied a claim that fraternity officers were involved in the actions of an unnamed "Picture Pledge."

Details of the case match a separate criminal case. Garrett Wolff will avoid trial on a misdemeanor video voyeurism charge if he meets requirements that include 100 hours of community service.

The Arkansas Supreme Court discussed the topic of pseudonyms in a 2010 ruling, Doe v. Weiss, stating that a lower court did not abuse its authority by throwing out an anonymous lawsuit.

However, the state's highest court order also noted that "some rules in this area are essential." There exists a Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice, a group of Supreme Court-appointed attorneys who are supposed to help the court with "rules of pleading, practice, and procedure" in state court.

But Arkansas has not adopted any rule or clarification similar to, for example, a proposal drafted by the non-partisan Uniform Law Commission. The commission consists of legal experts who, according to the group, promote the adoption of laws designed to solve problems common to all states.

This year, the Uniform Law Commission proposed that people whose privacy is violated by the distribution of explicit images should be allowed the option of filing lawsuits under a pseudonym.

Metro on 08/21/2018

Upcoming Events