Judge denies pseudonym for U-M student suing over AI misconduct discipline

A University of Michigan student who was disciplined for allegedly using artificial intelligence to write course papers without authorization has been denied permission to proceed anonymously in her lawsuit against the university.

Case Background

In Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Mich., decided yesterday by U.S. District Judge Laurie Michelson, the plaintiff—identified only as "Jane Doe"—challenged disciplinary action taken against her for academic misconduct. The university placed her on disciplinary probation and required her to write a 1,000-word reflective essay.

The student maintains she has "documented disabilities," including generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She alleges that her "disability-related writing traits could be misinterpreted as AI and should not be treated as proof of misconduct."

On February 9, 2026, she filed suit against numerous university officials and instructors, claiming the disciplinary action violated:

• The Rehabilitation Act
• The Americans with Disabilities Act
• Her procedural due process rights

Court Denies Pseudonym Request

The court rejected the student's request to proceed under a pseudonym, finding insufficient justification for anonymity.

Reputational Harm Argument Rejected

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that pseudonymity was warranted due to risk of reputational injury:

"Plaintiff's contention that she would suffer 'a severe stigmatic and reputational injury' if she had to litigate under her name is unsupported."

The court noted that "[u]nsubstantiated fears of speculative harm are insufficient to outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings." It further found that concerns about impact on her "ability to practice professionally as a physician" was not a legally cognizable consideration under relevant precedent.

'Utmost Intimacy' Standard Not Met

The court also rejected the argument that the case involved matters of "utmost intimacy," which would justify anonymity:

"Plaintiff believes that 'utmost intimacy' includes her 'mental health conditions, treatment, and disability-related accommodations.' But she does not provide any authority to support that these types of concerns constitute 'utmost intimacy'..."

The court cited multiple cases where similar requests were denied, including Doe v. Univ. of Akron (N.D. Ohio 2016), which found that "none of the medical conditions identified by plaintiff in her complaint—ADHD, anxiety, depression—involve matters of the 'utmost intimacy.'"

The court distinguished the case from Doe v. Streeter (E.D. Mich. 2020), which involved sexual abuse and child pornography—"paradigmatic examples of persons who ought to be entitled to grants of anonymity."

Court's Conclusion

"The Court appreciates Plaintiff's situation. But many federal court plaintiffs must face disclosure of sensitive or personal information that they would likely prefer to keep private. Plaintiff fails to carry her burden to show that her case is otherwise exceptional."

Representation

Brian M. Schwartz and Conrad R. Wolan of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. represent the defendants. Charles Blackwell also moved to intervene in the case.