## Facts

- A women law students association affiliated with a university and four women lawyers sued two Dallas law firms under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination in hiring summer law clerks and associates.
- The association filed a putative class action on behalf of itself, its women members, and similarly situated women.
- In related litigation, the four women lawyers sought to proceed under fictitious names (“Lawyers A–D”) to avoid alleged professional or economic harm from public identification.
- Defendants served interrogatories seeking, among other things, the identities of the association’s officers and governing members and information about the association’s relationship to the university.
- Plaintiffs objected and sought protective relief, asserting disclosure would cause embarrassment, annoyance, and economic loss and would chill participation.
- The district court entered pretrial orders requiring (1) disclosure of the true identities of “Lawyers A–D” by proper pleadings and (2) answers to specified interrogatories, including those identifying association leadership and describing its relationship to the university.
- Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal from these pretrial orders; defendants argued the orders were not immediately appealable.

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial orders compelling disclosure of party identities and discovery responses were immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
2. Whether individual plaintiffs could litigate under fictitious names in a Title VII action based primarily on feared professional or economic harm.
3. Whether the association could be compelled, through interrogatories, to disclose the identities of its officers and governing members and details concerning its relationship to the university, notwithstanding asserted associational privacy concerns.

## Decision

- The court held the challenged pretrial orders were immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the asserted rights would likely be lost if review awaited final judgment.
- The court affirmed the order requiring “Lawyers A–D” to proceed under their true names, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.
- The court largely affirmed the discovery orders compelling answers to interrogatories, including disclosure of association leadership and organizational information relevant to the claims and defenses.
- The court made a limited modification to one aspect of the discovery order, but otherwise upheld the district court’s rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order may be reviewed immediately when it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires that the complaint name all parties, and Rule 17(a) requires prosecution in the name of the real party in interest; anonymity is a narrow exception.
- Pseudonymous litigation is permitted only in exceptional cases typically involving highly sensitive and personal matters; potential reputational, professional, or economic harm alone is ordinarily insufficient.
- Courts may compel discovery of an organization’s leadership and structural information when relevant to standing, representational capacity, class allegations, or defenses; asserted chilling effects must be supported and weighed against the opposing party’s need for discovery.
- Fairness to defendants and the public character of judicial proceedings support requiring identified accusers and permitting core discovery necessary to test claims and defenses.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit permitted immediate appellate review of pretrial orders compelling disclosure but largely affirmed them, holding that Title VII plaintiffs alleging discriminatory hiring were required to litigate under their real names and that the association had to provide significant organizational discovery, subject only to a limited modification.


S. Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979)