Staff Writer – Bruno Matarazzo Jr.
Five women identified as Jane Doe No. 1 through 5 in their lawsuit against Kent School over a former IT administrator accused of stealing private images from their computers while they were students are asking the appellate court to let them remain anonymous.
The five women sued the school earlier this year over allegations that former Kent School employee Daniel Clery obtained their photos and other information without authorization and suspect he passed the material on to others.
Although the Kent School has not opposed their request to remain anonymous, Superior Court Judge Daniel Klau denied their motions to proceed under pseudonyms. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown evidence that anyone beyond the former employee had viewed or distributed the images.
After the women appealed that decision, the judge went a step further, terminating an automatic stay that ordinarily would have preserved their anonymity until the appellate court issued a decision.
“The public interest in judicial openness, including knowing parties’ true names, is materially harmed by staying the court’s pseudonym order for the duration of a non-expediated appeal,” Judge Daniel Klau wrote in his decision.
On Wednesday, the plaintiff’s attorneys filed a motion for review with the state Appellate Court.
They argue that forcing them to proceed under their legal names before appellate review would permanently expose them as victims of sexual exploitation and effectively nullify their right to appeal.
“Once the stay is terminated, the harm to the plaintiffs cannot be undone. If they are erroneously deprived of their right to proceed pseudonymously while their appeal is pending, the effect is irreversible,” attorneys Joel Faxon and James Healy wrote in the motion to the state’s second-highest court.
The lawsuit is one of several against the private boarding and day school since Clery’s arrest last year by state police on two charges of first-degree computer crimes. He pleaded not guilty and is free on a $25,000 bond.
The women’s attorneys argue they fear that revealing their true identities would impair their ability to obtain future employment and increase the risk of sexual exploitation, identity theft, fraud and online bullying.