United States District Court, District of Columbia
DEBRA L. HARTLEY, Plaintiff,
OFFICER WILFERT, et al., Defendants
For DEBRA L. HARTLEY, Plaintiff: Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, Washington, DC; Frederick V. Mulhauser, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Washington, DC.
For FREDERICK WILFERT, JANE DOE, Officer, Defendants: Marina Utgoff Braswell, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.
JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Debra Hartley walked 225 miles fro her home in Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C., to raise awareness about sex discrimination in law enforcement. When she arrived in front of the White House, two uniformed Secret Service officers confronted her, allegedly violating her right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Although Plaintiff knows the identity of one of the officers (Officer Wilfert), she sued the other as " Jane Doe." She now moves for an order directing Defendants' counsel to provide Jane Doe's name and address for the purpose of effecting service. Doe, meanwhile, has moved to dismiss the suit on statute-of-limitations grounds. Because this Court finds both Motions premature, it will deny them without prejudice.
The facts of this case are largely set forth in Hartley v. Wilfert, No. 12-1185, 918 F.Supp.2d 45, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2013), in which the Court previously denied Defendant Wilfert's motion to dismiss. For purposes of these Motions, it suffices to say that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doe, along with Wilfert, infringed on her right to speak on the sidewalk in front of the White House on July 20, 2009. Compl., ¶ ¶ 14, 19.
Hartley filed a complaint with the Secret Service about the officers' conduct on August 19, 2010. Id., ¶ 29. She then brought this action against Officers Wilfert and Doe on July 18, 2012, asserting one count for violation of her First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Id. at 1, ¶ 34. Surviving Wilfert's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Motion for An Order Directing Defendants' Counsel to Provide Plaintiff's Counsel with Defendant Jane Doe's Name and Address for the Purpose of Effecting Service. See ECF No. 13. In addition to opposing that Motion, Doe has moved to dismiss the suit on limitations grounds. See ECF Nos. 23, 24.
While the two Motions are based on entirely different theories, they both relate to Doe's identity. It is nonetheless helpful to address them separately.
A. Motion for Disclosure of Name
Plaintiff has asked the Court to order Defendants' counsel to provide Defendant Jane Doe's correct name and address because Plaintiff cannot otherwise uncover her identity. See Mot. for Disclosure at 1. Plaintiff says Defendants' counsel knows Officer Doe's identity since she filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of both Defendants and ...