Lindsay Goldbrum

Yes. So my client, who is no longer anonymous, Kaya Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial, after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court and people realized who she was.

Yes. So my client, who is no longer anonymous, Kaya Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial, after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court and people realized who she was.

She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial.

She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. You see it in high-profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson.

Absolutely. You see it in high-profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson.

Yeah, so it's a case-by-case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know.

Yeah, so it's a case-by-case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know.

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that... Entitle them to remain anonymous. And so safety concerns, privacy concerns. I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved.

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that... Entitle them to remain anonymous. And so safety concerns, privacy concerns. I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved.

And so that's more likely to allow them to remain anonymous. But you also worry about emotional well-being. and professional consequences and family protection.

And so that's more likely to allow them to remain anonymous. But you also worry about emotional well-being. and professional consequences and family protection.

Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns.

Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns.

Yes. So my client, who is no longer anonymous, Kaya Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial, after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court and people realized who she was.

Yes. So my client, who is no longer anonymous, Kaya Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial, after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court and people realized who she was.

She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial.

She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. You see it in high-profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson.

Absolutely. You see it in high-profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson.

Yeah, so it's a case-by-case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know.

Yeah, so it's a case-by-case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know.

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that... Entitle them to remain anonymous. And so safety concerns, privacy concerns. I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved.

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that... Entitle them to remain anonymous. And so safety concerns, privacy concerns. I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved.

And so that's more likely to allow them to remain anonymous. But you also worry about emotional well-being. and professional consequences and family protection.

And so that's more likely to allow them to remain anonymous. But you also worry about emotional well-being. and professional consequences and family protection.

Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns.

Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns.

Yes. So my client, who is no longer anonymous, Kaya Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial, after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court and people realized who she was.

She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. You see it in high-profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson.

Yeah, so it's a case-by-case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know.

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that... Entitle them to remain anonymous. And so safety concerns, privacy concerns. I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved.

And so that's more likely to allow them to remain anonymous. But you also worry about emotional well-being. and professional consequences and family protection.

Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns.