What does the law say about this issue in your opinion?
Why is Hardin so persistent in wanting to the identity of these women made public? They know who they are. Watson has his IG Dms and te. Messages and he paid them through cash app. He bought airline tickets for at least one of them. The complaints have dates and times. It doesn’t pass the smell test. They know who these women are. Their names have to be public so he can defend himself? He doesn’t remember whether he sexually assaulted a woman or not unless he knows their name?
Texas has an open courts provision in our State Constitution. See Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 13. (" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) states: "An original pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original petition, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, shall contain (a) :a short statement of the cause of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim involved;" Rule 79 states: "[t]he petition shall state the names of the parties and their residence, if known, together with the contents prescribed in Rule 47 above."
Hardin is allowed to challenge the defects in the petition by filing a special exception, which is more or less what he is doing. The argument that Watson should know whom they all are carries little to no weight under the law as Hardin correctly notes in his motion. I think Hardin has some very legitimate concerns, and to be honest, while I can sympathize with Buzbee not wanting to publicly name the Plaintiffs, he should at the least (as he will be required to do so under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(b)) tell Hardin whom each of them are at this time instead of playing these types of b.s. games. Hardin has the right to know who they are in order to prepare a defense.
Regarding having the names disclosed for the public (i.e. instead of Jane Doe v. Watson, it would be their real name v. Watson),generally the names have to be disclosed in the public filings. See
Ware v. Crystal City Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1972
writ dism'd) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining special exceptions and requiring repleader to state the names and addresses of voters in an election contest because it would not allow the attorney to prepare for trial). Even initials aren't generally enough, unless it's a child.
However, Buzbee can make an argument that the nature of these cases (i.e. potential sexual assault) allows him to keep the names confidential. See
Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Tex. 1995) (allowing a sexual assault victim to proceed anonymously, but ultimately holding newspaper's summary judgment motion was properly granted. This was the case, even though the article did not state sexual assault victim's name, telephone number, or address, as information in article did not disclose embarrassing private facts which were not of legitimate public concern) and
Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1979) (factors to consider in allowing plaintiff to proceed under a factitious name under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The issue for Buzbee is that, presumably, all of the plaintiffs are adults, so he doesnt get the benefit of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provision as it is directed towards children. In criminal cases, nothing prohibits the indictment from naming the adult sexual assault victim. However, most times, out of respect, the State writes their initials, but you better believe they tell the defense attorney whom the Complainant is.
At the same time, Buzbee could ask that the court documents be sealed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a (providing the limited circumstances and onerous procedures required for sealing court records). However, if that were to happen it would prevent the media and public from having access to court documents and the case information. I would imagine that it would also make Hardin obtaining a gag order in the case (to stop Buzbee and his press conferences) easier.
The benefit for Hardin is simple, he gets to use the law to put some pressure on Buzbee as he will have quite a bit of law to support his positions. Buzbee not even giving the names only to Hardin is a bad look and he may start off with an unhappy judge in that respect. In addition, should the judge rule against Hardin's request, it gives Hardin an issue for appeal.
Sometimes it's not all about trying the case in public, the case still has to be litigated in a court of law. Theatrics don't help in front of a judge. With his motion, Hardin gets to move the case back into the courtroom, at least for the time being. Oh, and keep in mind, Hardin has to file this motion in each of the 22 cases, and argue the cases in separate courtrooms (the cases have not been consolidated).