from U.S. Department of Energy v. Emory University.decided Friday by Judge Steve Jones (Georgia):
Plaintiff…alleges that defendant Emory University breached its contract with him as a student in disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his suspension. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from the plaintiff’s development of an “artificial intelligence-based learning tool” with another student that the University Honors Committee ultimately concluded was “offensive to Emory’s community standards” because it could lead to academic dishonesty and cheating. ….
Plaintiffs seek anonymity in this lawsuit and the identity of Emory Student 1 to remain anonymous….
Generally, all complaints filed in federal court must “set out the names of all parties”[.]”Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)…The Eleventh Circuit has approved anonymity when the case involves government activity, the disclosure of “extremely intimate” information, or an admission of unlawful conduct or risk. Criminal Prosecution.
The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s concerns about its reputation. However, the court did not agree to allow the plaintiffs to remain anonymous in this case.The general factors that would allow a party to continue to use a pseudonym are not present: the plaintiff did not question government activity, is not a minor, no threats of physical violence were discovered against him, and his accusations were not specifically identified Require Disclosure of private information.
The plaintiffs cited several cases involving students suing universities over disciplinary proceedings. However, each case involved an allegation of sexual harassment or sexual assault… Herein, the nature of the allegations brought by the plaintiff against the defendant and the underlying factual basis for those allegations are inconsistent with the sensitive and personal allegations of sexual assault or harassment in previous cases involving university student disciplinary proceedings. different. The plaintiffs have also not advanced any other basis that overrides Rule 10’s requirement to disclose the names of parties and the public interest in judicial proceedings.
The court’s decision does not mean that all information in the case will or should be made public. In fact, there are other ways to protect specific information in litigation. See, e.g., Fed. R. Citizen. 26(c) (allowing for “protection[ing] “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” subject to a showing of “good cause”). The fact that these other means exist and are, in the court’s opinion, more suitable to address the plaintiff’s immediate concerns shows that the plaintiff does not Proceeding anonymously is required to obtain the protection it seeks, and therefore, the court made clear that while it would not permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, it would consider future protections regarding plaintiffs’ personal information or the identity or person of Emory Student 1 make.
Here are the background facts behind the case allegation (remember, this is just one allegation):
In the spring of 2023, Doe and his friends (referred to here as “Emory Student 1”) presented to Emory students, faculty, and alumni at the university’s annual student entrepreneurial business pitch competition (the “Pitch the Summit” competition) Eightball, and Emory University awarded Eightball the grand prize of $10,000.
While nothing has changed in the Eight-Ball, Emory’s perception of the Eight-Ball has changed dramatically. About six months after Emory celebrated and funded the development of Eightball, the Emory Honors Council concluded that Eightball violated Emory’s Community Standards because Eightball — like Calculator, Google, etc. Engines, as well as many other technical tools – “can be used to cheat.” To be clear, Doe never cheated, and Emory never claimed he cheated. In fact, Emory admits there is no evidence that anyone has ever used the eight-ball to cheat. To this day, Emory University still advertises “Eightball” as a model of student innovation and entrepreneurship.
Emory University concluded that Doe violated the Honor Code, failed to adhere to its established procedures and standards, and intentionally violated the contract with Doe as an undergraduate. The drama and subsequent discipline at Emory, if allowed to persist, would unfairly cause Doe to miss a semester of his senior year of college, prevent him from writing his honors thesis, delay graduation, inhibit his graduate education and career opportunities, and permanently tarnishing his reputation.
